My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA Final Order: PDT 13-1 Affirmed
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
LUBA Final Order: PDT 13-1 Affirmed
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2018 4:02:36 PM
Creation date
1/29/2018 10:17:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Supplemental Materials
Document_Date
1/29/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
- n <br />t <br />v <br />k . <br />1. <br />. <br />some improvement to Oakleigh: Lane (Widening, the paved' wrdth to 20 feet) <br />, <br />albeit: ~not the:: same level of improvements (e.g curbs and sidewalks) that <br />a <br />3 <br />petitioners and others: argued ,for Drawing a different conclusion based on a <br />4 <br />different - evidentiary record :does not mean-. that the : planning, comtnxsson <br />5 = , <br />cfianged:°its understanding. of the meaning, of EC 9'.832'0(5)(b). <br />6 <br />Second; ;even assuming that: the :2017 "..decision embodies a changed <br />7: <br />-:understanding of the meaning .of EC 9.8320(5)(b) from ahe: 2013 or 20.15 <br />a - . <br />8 ° <br />decisions, petitioners' and others.have; since at east the, 20:1.5'proceedings, been <br />, <br />9 <br />arguing and presenting evidence. to the effect that Oaldeigh. Lane is unsafe <br />1`0 <br />i "'ts s `current and must, be improved 'in` order "far the PUD to: comply . ' <br />condition <br />11 <br />with various approval criteria. In the 2017 decision, the planning: commission <br />2 <br />. 12 <br />partially -agreed on that point.. - Petitioners argue, in. effect,: for 'the ` right. to <br />:13 <br />present additional evidence and:.argument Ghat Oakleigh `Lane must be more <br />x <br />14 ' <br />fully improved. 'However;, they have not.. established that. the.. evidence they <br />E <br />15 <br />presented in earlier proceedings is irrelevant under any "new" interpretation of <br />16" <br />EC 9.8320(5)(b) or identified different evidence'they would present that is now <br />1,7 ` <br />rfor the first time. relevant under a changed or unanticipated interpretation of EG <br />Finally, petitioners argue. that the planning commission erred in failing to <br />. <br />20 ° <br />provide them an opportunity to review the findings addressing EC 9:8320(5)(b) <br />_ 21', <br />and the newly : imposed-.. Condition 20;, which were. adopted following, <br />22 <br />deliberations .after the close of the'evid6ntiaiy,record::.; However; aside-from' in <br />- <br />. <br />Page 10:' <br />t <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.