My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC COMMENTS (as of 8-8-17)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
PUBLIC COMMENTS (as of 8-8-17)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/8/2017 10:16:22 AM
Creation date
8/8/2017 10:16:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
8/8/2017
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
because the particular application at issue cannot satisfy the particular clear and objective <br />standards. Here, it is not the case that the clear and objective standards are violated in all <br />instances. Similar to the case in Southeast Neighbors Neighborhood AssÓn v. City of Eugene, the <br />applicantÓs frustration with the needed housing track as applied to this application, Ðdoes not <br />conv ert an otherwise clear and objective standard into a standard that offends ORS 197.307(4).Ñ <br />___ Or LUBA ___ (LUBA No 2013-004 July 12, 2013). <br />As explained above, applying subjective criteria contained in the General Track will not <br />violate the Needed Housing statute because the applicant retains the option of applying only <br />clear and objective criteria under the Needed Housing track. The applicantÓs arguments to the <br />contrary in the March 3, 2017, letter should, therefore, be disregarded. <br /> Sincerely, <br />Sean T. Malone <br />Cc: <br />Clients <br />3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.