1 allowable in a residential district would support the <br />2 conclusion the use was unlawful when established. In that <br />3 case, it would clearly not qualify for nonconforming use status <br />4 under the city code. Because of the absence of a finding on <br />5 the "lawful use" question, the city's decision must be <br />6 remanded.5 <br />7 2. Floodwav <br />8 Petitioner next contends the site plan approved by the city <br />9 provides for extensive fill and development on land within a <br />10 designated floodway.6 Specifically, petitioner contends the <br />11 floodway traversing Permawood's site will be used and improved <br />12 for a bike path, fencing, parking, industrial traffic <br />13 circulation, and outside storage of finished products. The <br />14 development code and the city's comprehensive plan are said to <br />15 prohibit such uses and improvements. Petitioner claims the <br />16 city made no findings analyzing the relationship between <br />17 Permawood's site plan and these prohibitions. <br />M Respondent first urges us to disregard these contentions <br />19 because of petitioner's failure to bring them to the city's <br />24 attention during the permit hearings. However, assuming the <br />21 concerns about floodway development? were not specifically <br />22 raised below by petitioner, they may nonetheless be raised <br />23 before this Board on appeal. Although a petitioner must Nave <br />24 appeared before the local government in order to obtain <br />25 standing under ORS 197.830(3)(b), we have held the appearance <br />26 rule does not limit the substantive isSues which may be raised <br />Page 11 <br />