Appeal Materials (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearing Official March 5, 2018 Page 3 approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part, appearance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if: (a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of subsection (4) of this section; (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules; and (c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in subsection (4) of this section." The 2017 amendments clarified an ambiguity identified by the LCDC, in the context of a Corvallis enforcement proceedings. Corvallis suggested to the LCDC that the statute only benefits land that is on the acknowledged Buildable Land Inventory (BLI), and it contended that the subject property there was not on the BLI. The LCDC found that the site was on the BLI; hence it did not have to resolve the ambiguity. The legislature then clarified the ambiguity identified by Corvallis and the LCDC. The amendment, quoted above, makes clear that this statute now applies to decisions related to housing generally, not just to housing proposed on land that is in the BLI. The statute now applies to all housing proposals. The LCDC's Corvallis Enforcement Order is attached as Hearing Exhibit B. In that matter the subject property was on the BLI and had a discretionary Planned Development overlay zone. The Commission determined that the owner was nevertheless entitled to clear and objective standards. "[A]n applicant for a land use approval for housing under ORS 197.296 and 197.307 may ask for and receive "clear and objective" approval criteria, notwithstanding use of planned development discretionary criteria used in approval of other residential development projects in the vicinity, or even by previous property owners of the property in question." [LCDC Order at 15]. The Commission elaborated on the owner's right to proceed under clear and objective standards regardless of the presence of a discretionary overlay zone. "[R]equestors' property is part of the City's required inventory of land defined as "buildable" under statute and "needed land" for fulfilling housing needs for the 20 year planning period. Further, because the Commission concludes the governing statutes discussed above establish residentially designated lands as developable under clear and objective standards, at the applicant's preference, it does not matter whether or not Requestors' land is under a Planned Development overlay. The applicant may simply request and be granted authority to proceed with his or her proposal under clear and objective development standards. ORS 197.307(6). Quite simply, what counts in this regard is the fact the property is designated (zoned) for residential development." APP B - HEARING LTTR 3.5.2018