PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch D - Laserfiche WebLink

conflict with bicycle and pedestrian use of the replacement pathway, because the northern portion of Willamette Alley, if unvacated, would remain open to vehicular traffic. Record 101. That is essentially the same argument petitioner presents on appeal. Continued vehicular use of Willamette Alley could conceivably conflict with the replacement pathway, and such conflicts could conceivably have bearing on the question of whether the vacation of West 12th Avenue, in isolation from the vacation of Willamette Alley, is in the public interest. Petitioner arguably had an adequate opportunity to present responsive argument during the second seven-day open record period, and exercised that opportunity. However, that even-day period was closed to new evidence, and the city rejected his request for the opportunity to present new evidence. It is not clear to us what kind of evidence responding to the withdrawal could be presented that would have a bearing on whether the vacation of West 12th Avenue is in the public interest, but we cannot say that no such evidence exists. We conclude that the city committed procedural error in accepting a revised application without providing a reasonable opportunity for parties to submit responsive evidence, and that petitioner has adequately demonstrated that the 24 city's procedural error prejudiced his substantial rights. The third assignment of error is sustained." The "net" on this is that an opponent must be provided a reasonable opportunity to respond to the application that is noticed and any changes that may occur afterward. So I would expect you might have a hard time arguing that your substantial rights were prejudiced if the application were changed prior to the hearing notice. However, I believe the City must serve a new notice after an application has been changed and that the hearing must be at least 30 days after the notice. The notice should indicate that the application has been modified. I would suggest you press Nick to observe this protocol or risk an appeal on the EPC approving the revised application without providing adequate notice that provided a reasonable opportunity for parties to submit evidence that responds to the modified application. Paul On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Tom Bruno <brunoassoegaol.com> wrote: Susan, please thank Nick for the insightful information. I would like you to ask the following questions. The application was a "forced" completion by the applicant. When application was forced by applicant the applicant had x number of lots and y number of dwellings. In November, the applicant changed a "force completion" to x + 1 and y + 2. On seven March can the applicant change a "forced application to change the number of lots (x) and dwellings (y)