My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA Final Order: PDT 13-1 Related Motions
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
LUBA Final Order: PDT 13-1 Related Motions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2018 4:03:05 PM
Creation date
1/29/2018 10:20:37 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.
/
14
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
I <br />Co-HousingOMC). Intervenor Peti_tionevStedman `(Stedman) also moves to <br />. <br />2'; <br />f le; reply briefs to the two response briefs: Both the:cIty and OlVIC object to <br />3 <br />portions of the four re l ' briefs, arguing. that they are not' confined to new.. <br />4 <br />matters" "within the meaning of OAR 661-010 `0039. (lzmiting reply briefs to <br />5 <br />"new matters" raised iii" the response briefs):` <br />6 ' <br />LUBA has held that`" new, matters"'.within .the rneani'ng of OAK 661 414, <br /> <br />7, 0439 include, (1) responses that an;" argument in the petition for'review:should <br />8. <br />fail'regardless, of its stated merits (i. e., something in the nature, of`an affirmative <br />9 <br />defense); and` (2)' responses to ' assignments of error "that" otherwise could not <br />10' <br />reasonably have-been anticipated, Foland:v:,Jackson..County ;61".Or LITBA 2b4, <br />" 11 <br />266 67 -aff'd 239 Or App'60' , 243: Pad 830 (2010)Reply _briefs that suiply . " <br />12 <br />embellish. Or' "elaborate arguments made. in the petition,-for review,. rebut direct . <br />13 . <br />.responses to the" merits of arguments made: in the petition. for"review, offer new 1 <br />" 14 . <br />arguments in support of ,,an assignment of, :error, or advance new bases, for <br />15 <br />reversal or remand are not.authorizedsby OAR 661-4:10-0039 <br />16 <br />With the : exceptions:. set forth below , the four reply briefs 'filed . by <br />petitioners 'and Stedman consist mostly; of one or more of the latter type of " . <br />17 <br />18;; <br />:arguments . that are." not responsive, to ' new, matters The.: exceptions" .are '(1) <br />19° <br />Section' D Arid H". of petitioners reply. to the- city's' response brief, (2) :Sections <br />20 <br />petxtioners,' reply to, OMC'.s ;response brief, (3) Sections" F and M <br />E, 'J and M of , <br />21• <br />of Stedman's reply .to OlVIC'"s response brief, anl.(4) Section N1- of Stedman's <br />22 <br />reply to' the city's : response brief. Those portions, : of the reply briefs are <br />Page 2 " <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.