Appeal Documents - Laserfiche WebLink

irrelevant - the focus is the subject property. The Hearings Official alleges that "[i]f the property was adjacent to the river and proposed to restrict access along the river[,] then opponents would likely be correct that the criterion is not satisfied." Here, that is the case. The property is adjacent to the river and proposed development restricts access. The Hearings Official has misconstrued the standard and there is no evidence in the record to show that the applicant has satisfied the standard. Appellants incorporate by reference all arguments related to EC 9.8815(2) raised before the Hearings Official as if set forth here. The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made findings not based on substantial evidence with retard to EC 9.8815(3) EC 9.8815(3) provides that proposed development shall "conform with applicable Willamette Greenway policies as set forth in the Metro Plan." Policy III-D, Policy D.5 provides that "[n]ew development that locates along the river corridors and waterways shall be limited to uses that are compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities of those water features." The Hearings Official simply concludes that because the proposed use is allowed in the R-2 zone. The Hearings Official also relies on the staff's position that "this policy is met to the extent that the proposed development of multi-family residential uses is allowed in the applicable R-2 zone, and otherwise found to be consistent with the natural resource protections afforded through the Willamette Greenway Permit criteria." Here, however, there has been no showing that the 35-foot development is consistent with the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities of the greenway. There is simply nothing in the record to support such findings to satisfy the criteria. The Hearings Official also alleges, without support, that the "proposal locates the development as far away from the river as possible." This finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Appellants incorporate by reference all arguments related to EC 9.8815(3) raised before the Hearings Official as if set forth here. The Hearings Official erred in finding that the Willamette River Greenway approval criteria do not apply to the subject application The Hearings Official erred in finding that the Willamette River Greenway approval criteria do not apply to the subject application. The Hearings Official alleges that the "2017 amendments to the needed housing statute eliminated the restriction of the clear and objective standards to buildable lands and applied them to not only all needed housing but all housing period." The distinction drawn by the Hearings Official misconstrues the law because all residentially designated land is buildable lands. The definition of "buildable lands" includes residential development, which comports with the subject application. See OAR 660-008-0005(2) (defining "buildable lands" to mean