<br />Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2 <br /> <br />…(c) Must amend its land use regulations to protect National Register Resources in conformity with <br />subsections (a) and (b). Until such regulations are adopted, subsections (a) and (b) shall apply directly <br />to National Register Resources. <br /> <br />OAR 660-023-0200(8)(c) does not include any particular deadline by which local codes must be amended <br />to require a public hearing on a demolition application for a National Register resource. Instead, the OAR <br />provides that until a local government amends its land use code to comply with the requirements of OAR <br />660-023-0200(8)(a), the public hearing requirement and the requirement to consider the eight factors <br />listed in OAR 660-023-0200(8)(a) apply directly to local government decisions on National Register <br />resources. Consequently, the Planning Commission finds that the OAR requires a public hearing and <br />consideration of the relevant factors as described (i.e. the process that was followed in this case). The <br />OAR does not require amendment of the City’s land use code or any zone changes are required prior to <br />consideration of an application for demolition of a National Register resource. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission finds that the Historic Review Board appropriately held a public hearing in <br />compliance with OAR 660-023-0200(8). The Planning Commission finds that this appeal issue provides <br />no basis for modification, or reversal of the Historic Review Board’s decision. <br /> <br />4. Incorrect application of factors from OAR 660-023-0200(8) <br /> <br />Appellant’s Argument <br />Baker asserts that a clear evaluation of each factor in OAR 660-023-0200(8) must be made and goes on <br />to argue that the Historic Review Board did not include a clear decision on each of the factors and the <br />weight assigned to each. Baker provides text that appears to be a copy of text from the Final Order <br />and/or earlier staff reports and includes his additional analysis. <br /> <br />A summary of Baker’s analysis, followed by a summary of the Final Order findings, and the Planning <br />Commission’s determination, is provided below. <br /> <br />Factor 1: Condition <br />Baker asserts that due to the age of the Harry and Etta Chase house, it needs repairs. However, based <br />on the conditions that existed in the 1990s when the building was listed as a National Register listing it <br />should be preserved. <br /> <br />Final Order Findings <br />The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested <br />parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents, <br />the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant about the repairs needed for the <br />Harry and Etta Chase House were sufficient to demonstrate that demolition could be allowed when <br />balancing this factor with others. The full findings of the Board are included in Attachment A. <br /> <br />Planning Commission’s Determination <br />Baker’s statements about the age of the house do not provide an explanation of how the Board made <br />an error in their findings, nor does Baker point out what should have been done differently, aside from <br />reaching the conclusion that the building needs to be preserved.