ion and its possible actions in the future <br />e civil litigation, either by a homeowners <br />e Planned Unit Development to be approved <br />it is impossible for the Hearings Official <br />re that certain approval criteria are met at a <br />oval criteria at EC 9.8320 is <br />dence to suggest an approval criteria will <br />clude a list of all the places in the application <br />wĻƭƷƩźĭƷźƚƓƭΑ//εw <br />lieu of which, the Hearings Official many <br />hus, even if CC&Rs were present in this <br />ilding bulk, scale and height limitations, <br />ally possible approval criteria will be met. <br /> fire hazard reduction, screening, etc. <br />•Similarly, the Hearing Official can not rely on a nonexistent homeowners <br />association as evidence that a criteria for approval has been met. The <br />. <br />where the applicant relies upon CC&Rs to meet a condition of approval <br />rmatively find that each of the appr <br />•No CC&Rs are presented in the application. So <br />City has no control over a homeowners associat <br />an enforcement mechanism that relies on privat <br />and <br />application, they cannot be relied upon as evi <br />•CC&Rs are not enforced by the City. They are <br />met by evidence presented in the application. In <br />incorporate Conditions for Final Approval to assu <br />association or by an aggrieved individual. T <br />•The Eugene Code requires before for a Tentativ <br />against violators of conservation areas, bu <br />fencing prohibitions, accesspreservation, <br />•For the Hearings Official's convenience we in <br />Conditions, <br />to ascertain whether it is even theoretic <br />later stage, but before final approval. <br />the Hearings Official must affi <br />be met in the future. <br />Covenants, <br /> <br />