and I stand by those statements. In both hearings, the applicant submitted a large amount of <br />information just before the hearing. Staff explained that they had not had a chance to fully review <br />all of the information submitted by the applicants, and as staff reports must be available seven days <br />before the public hearing the staff reports were written before all of the information had been <br />reviewed. The reason I asked whether staff had changed their minds was to find out whether any <br />of the additional information, which had been discussed during the applicants' presentations, had <br />changed their recommendations. I was not trying to influence their recommendations one way or <br />another, and as I am not bound by staff recommendations I would hardly need to change staff's <br />minds if I was biased. As to asking staff what more an applicant could do, the applicants had <br />indicated that they were willing to work with staff but were not sure exactly what staff might be <br />recommending. As the applicant and staff had indicated that they were going to discuss possible <br />mitigation during the open record period, it made sense to have staff tell the applicant what it <br />thought might be necessary. Linstromberg also cites Caster v. City of Silverton, 54 Or LUBA 441 <br />2007) and ORS 197.522, but I cannot follow her argument. ORS 197.522 is under the section on <br />moratoria on construction or land development and pertains to local governments imposing <br />conditions of approval to approve a permit or denying a permit that cannot be made consistent <br />with the comprehensive plan or land use regulations with the impositions of conditions of <br />approval.10 I fail to see how it could apply in the present case. Linstromberg's arguments are <br />meritless. <br />Opponents argue that allowing the proposed mono-pine would reduce property values. The <br />applicant responds that there is no evidence that this is true and that even if it were true none of <br />the applicable approval criteria list potential impacts on property values as a basis for reviewing <br />or denying the application. Linstromberg submitted a memorandum submitted by Fodor & <br />Associates in a different case that argues that cell towers lower property values. Mr. Fodor made <br />the novel argument that property values were a "desirable feature" of a neighborhood under Mero <br />Plan Policy EA discussed earlier. While that is certainly a clever argument, I do not see that <br />10 ORS 197.522 provides: "Local government to approve subdivision, partition or construction; conditions. A <br />local government shall approve an application for a permit, authorization or other approval necessary for the <br />subdivision or partitioning of, or construction on, any land that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and <br />applicable land use regulations or shall impose reasonable conditions on the application to make the proposed activity <br />consistent with the plan and applicable regulations. A local government may deny an application that is inconsistent <br />with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations and that cannot be made consistent through the <br />imposition of reasonable conditions of approval." <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 16 <br />261