Petitioners Opening Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

9 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 actual residential use or not reserved for the exclusive' use of the residents, according to the plain meaning of the terms of the EC. Id. Next, Petitioners argued that additional portions of circulation must be excluded because they fall within the definition of "street."' Id. 3. LUBA's Decision a. LUBA's decision regarding the leasing office and maintenance shed LUBA rejected Petitioners' arguments because the EC 9.2751(1)(b) must be 11 "applied in harmony" with EC 9.2751(1)(c): a "Actual" is defined as an adjective to mean "[2]b: existing in fact or reality" and "4. In existence or taking place at the time." Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 22. ' "Exclusive" is defined as an adjective to mean "2: excluding or inclined to exclude others (as outsiders) from participation (as in an association or privilege) or form cordial relations 3a: admitting of or soliciting only a socially restricted patronage 4a: SINGLE, SOLE Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 793. 4 The Planning Commission decision summarized Petitioner's arguments as follows: "Summary of Appellant's Argument Appellants argue that the Hearings Official erred in his inclusion of `paved circulation areas', the leasing office, maintenance building, and open space on the eastern portion of the property as part of the acreage of land considered part of the residential use of the subject lot. According to the Appellants, the `circulation areas' meet the EC definition of 'streets'. Additionally, the leasing office, maintenance building, and open space areas should be excluded as they are not `for the exclusive use of the residents of the development.' Instead, the Appellants argue that these areas are open to the public and not for the exclusive use of the residents. Lastly, the Appellants argue that the `Greenway area' designated as open space is also open and not exclusive to the residents." ER-30-31 (Rec-25-26).