LUBA Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

1 As explained, the hearings official and planning commission approved 2 the PUD application under the EC 9.8320 general track standards. With respect 3 to the SHS, the hearings official concluded that the SHS did not apply to the 4 subject property, although for a different reason than argued by the Dreyers. In 5 the alternative, however, the hearings official found that the application is 6 consistent with the applicable SHS policies. 7 On appeal, the Dreyers explain in the "Relief Sought" section of the 8 petition for review: 9 "[The Dryers] want the benefit of the approval they received. 10 They do not seek remand. In this appeal, however, [the Dreyers] 11 want the benefit of two legal theories they pressed unsuccessfully 12 before the decision makers. If [the Dreyers] are correct about their 13 legal theories, LUBA's correction of the city's legal errors should 14 still result in affirming the city decision, because the City has 15 already concluded that the proposal satisfies the remaining 16 applicable standards. In addition, resolution of the two legal 17 theories should form a basis for LUBA to deny all of the 18 [N]eighbors' anticipated assignments of error. [The Dreyers'] 19 legal theories raised here should have been a more simple and 20 direct route to city approval. [The Dreyers] should not have to 21 defend 60 pages of city findings at LUBA and the Court of 22 Appeals if they are right about the issues they raise here. LUBA 23 should affirm but correct the legal errors by the City." Dreyers' 24 Petition for Review 1-2 (footnote omitted; underscore in original). 25 The Dreyers cite Recovery House IV v. City of Eugene, 156 Or App 509, 965 26 P2d 488 (1998), for the proposition that an applicant has the right to submit an 27 application under one set of standards while at the same time challenging 28 whether those standards even apply to the proposed development. In Recovery Page 10