My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch D
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch D
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2018 4:03:37 PM
Creation date
3/7/2018 10:20:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Misc.
Document_Date
3/6/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
What is the purpose and how does a "forced completion" protect the citizens against the applicant's PUD. It <br />appears the "forced completion is meaningless. It is very difficult for citizen's to write a response and <br />prepare an appropriate response to continuous major changes to a "forced completion." It appears to me, the <br />city needs a base line (time) in order to do a complete and thorough review to ensure the applicant "conforms" <br />to the engineering, Geotechnical, hydrology, safety, traffic, Tree and other PUD "requirements" to city codes; <br />county codes; state laws and federal laws. How can / does the city attend a hearing (as I understand same as a <br />court of law) if changes are made by applicant with a "forced competition" by the applicant the same day of <br />the hearing; week before hearing; or even 30 days before a hearing? <br />Bottom line as I read Nick's email, if applicant extends more than 70 days past 7 March 2018, the applicant <br />has to resubmit his application and pay a new filing fee. <br />Tom Bruno <br />Co-chair LHVC Response Committee <br />Sent from my iPhone <br />On Jan 2 2018, at 4:22 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello~,ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: <br />Susan, <br />So sorry to take so long to respond, came back from my holiday vacation sick with the flu, I was only in <br />the office on Friday the 29`h for several hours. <br />I confirmed today that the postponement was to request a 70 day time postponement and to set a <br />new hearing date. <br />What is being referred to by the "120 clock" is regarding ORS 227.178 (Oregon Revised Statues), there <br />is a requirement that the City shall take final action including all appeals within 120 days of being <br />deemed complete (I refer to this as the 120-day clock). This part of the ORS also provides for written <br />extension of the 120-day period by the applicant. The total of all extensions shall not exceed 245 days. <br />As it stands, the application was deemed complete on 8-29-17. <br />First extension was made for 30 days on 9-8-17, with 10 days on the 120 clock. <br />A second extension was requested before the 30 days was up, to add 70 more days of extension on 9- <br />28-17. <br />These two extension ran out on 12-17-7. <br />A third extension was requested on 12-21-17 for 70 additional days of extension, a new hearing date <br />of March 7, 2018 with 5 more days added to the 120 clock. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.