<br />Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2 <br /> <br />Planning Commission’s Determination <br />While the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Plan provides valuable context for the understanding of <br />the Chase Gardens Subarea policies in the Willakenzie Area Plan, the Chase Gardens Nodal Development <br />Plan was a precursor to the adoption of the Chase Gardens Subarea policies in the Willakenzie Area Plan <br />and, unlike the Willakenzie Area Plan, is not an adopted refinement of the City’s acknowledged <br />comprehensive plan.. Had Policy 1 of the Chase Gardens Subarea been intended to only allow infill <br />development around the existing historic structures, such text could have been added prior to its <br />adoption. As the policy contains no such text, the Board did not err in its interpretation of the policy. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission finds that this appeal issue provides no basis to conclude that the Historic <br />Review Board erred in its consideration, interpretation, or application of the criteria in OAR 660-023- <br />0200(8) and therefore no basis for modification or reversal of the Historic Review Board’s decision. <br /> <br />5. Standard of Review <br /> <br />Appellant’s Argument <br />Baker provides a statement in the appeal that reads as follows: <br /> <br />Notwithstanding EC 9.7655(3), which conflicts with state law, the Historic Demolition application for a <br />permit as defined in ORS Chapter 227 and this appeal of the Historic Review Board is not limited to the <br />issues raised in the following appeal statement. <br /> <br />Planning Commission’s Determination <br />ORS 227.175 (10) provides that if an initial decision on a permit application is made without a hearing, <br />on appeal “the presentation of testimony, arguments, and evidence shall not be limited to issues raised <br />in a notice of appeal.” However, that statute only applies to land use applications where the initial <br />decision is made without a hearing. In this case, a public hearing was held by the Historic Review Board <br />on all three applications, so ORS 227.175(10) does not apply. The Eugene Code specifically identifies the <br />process for appeals of a decision of the Board at EC 9.7655(3). EC 9.7655(3) is provided below: <br /> <br />EC 9.7655(3): The appeal shall include a statement of issues on appeal, be based on the record, <br />and be limited to the issues raised in the record that are set out in the filed statement of issues. <br />The appeal statement shall explain specifically how the hearings official or historic review board <br />failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with applicable criteria. <br />The basis of the appeal is limited to the issues raised during the review of the original application. <br /> <br />Based on this section from the Eugene Code, the Planning Commission must follow the specified review <br />process which limits the appeal to evidence in the record before the Historic Review Board and issues <br />raised during review of the application by the Historic Review Board and included in the appeal <br />statements. The Planning Commission finds that this appeal issue is not a basis for reversal or <br />modification of the Historic Review Board’s decision. <br /> <br />Appeal from Harlow Neighbors <br />The appeal submitted by the Harlow Neighbors groups their appeal issues into three different areas <br />which are discussed below.