My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Testimony (Opposition)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Testimony (Opposition)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2018 9:08:26 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 11:42:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
3/7/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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
1 which authorize condemnation of property within or without the city for "fire protection" <br />2 facilities. According to the city, the access road is intended to provide access for fire trucks <br />3 and alternative public evacuation routes in case of wildland fires, and thus would qualify as a <br />4 "fire protection" facility. Finally, the city cites to ORS 223.005, which grants the city broad <br />5 authority to appropriate any private real estate within or without city limits for "any public or <br />6 municipal use or for the general benefit and use of the people of the city[.]" <br />7 We agree with the city that under one statute or another the city likely has the <br />8 authority to condemn the disputed right-of-way, if that becomes necessary. Certainly, <br />9 petitioners have not demonstrated that any uncertainty with respect to the city's <br />10 condemnation authority is such that it can be said that fulfillment of the condition of <br />11 approval requiring dedication and construction of the access road is precluded as a matter of <br />12 law. The city appropriately drafted that condition in a manner that is sufficient to ensure that <br />13 fulfillment of the condition will occur prior to final development approval. If for one reason <br />14 or another the condition is unsatisfied, intervenor will not be able to obtain final subdivision <br />15 approval. We do not understand Meyer, Rhyne or Stoloff to require more, under the present <br />16 circumstances. <br />17 The first assignment of error is denied. <br />18 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />19 City of Gresham Community Development Code (CDC) 5.0232 provides that "[a]ny <br />20 removal of trees which would result in clear cutting is prohibited on land within the <br />21 [HPCD]."5 Similarly, CDC 9.1010(F) provides that "[a]ll tree removal that would result in <br />22 clear cutting on slopes in excess of 15% is prohibited." CDC 3.0010 defines "clear cutting" <br />23 as: <br />24 "Any tree removal which leaves fewer than an average of one tree per 1,000 square <br />25 feet of lot area, well-distributed throughout the entirety of the site. * * <br />5 CDC 5.0232 has since been amended or deleted. <br />Page 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.