1 the city approved a residential subdivision based in relevant part on a finding that sanitary <br />2 sewer facilities were "available." The petitioner argued that the proposed sewer facilities <br />3 required access to a sewer line on his property, and that the service provider did not own an <br />4 easement over petitioner's property for that purpose. The hearings officer disagreed, finding <br />5 that the service provider's easement over petitioner's property allowed service to the <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />proposed development. In the alternative, the hearings officer found that the service provider <br />had the legal authority and ability to condemn easements necessary to serve the subject <br />property. On appeal to LUBA, the petitioner disputed both findings, arguing in relevant part <br />that the outcome of any condemnation proceeding was doubtful, because the petitioner <br />intended to challenge any such proceeding. We declined to review the merits of the parties' <br />dispute over the meaning and extent of the existing easement, because we affirmed the <br />hearings officer's alternative disposition that even if the existing easement did not authorize <br />service, the service provider had the authority to condemn an easement: <br />"The parties argue at great length whether the existing easements and <br />applicable property law establish that the district has an easement over <br />petitioner's property; however, that is not the issue before us. The issue is <br />whether PZC [Portland Zoning Code] 33.652.020A.1 is satisfied. It is well <br />established that, where there is conflicting evidence over whether an approval <br />criterion is satisfied or can be satisfied, a local government may either (1) find <br />that the approval criterion is satisfied, or (2) find that it is feasible to satisfy <br />the approval criterion and impose conditions necessary to ensure that the <br />criterion will be satisfied. Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442, <br />447 (1992). In this case, the hearings officer apparently did both-he found <br />that the district had an easement over petitioner's property and also imposed a <br />condition that the district obtain an easement to provide sanitary service to the <br />subdivision. Thus, even if petitioner is correct that the existing easements do <br />not grant the district the ability to connect the proposed subdivision to the <br />existing line on petitioner's property, the finding that the district will condemn <br />the easement if necessary is sufficient to demonstrate that it is feasible to <br />satisfy PZC 33.652.020A.1. If intervenors ultimately cannot satisfy the <br />condition of approval then they will not be able to develop the subdivision." <br />50 Or LUBA at 565-66 <br />33 We then distinguished our initial decision in the present appeal: <br />Page 7 <br />