My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments 2024.02.16
>
OnTrack
>
MHT
>
2023
>
MHT 23-24
>
Public Comments 2024.02.16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2024 4:33:46 PM
Creation date
2/20/2024 4:33:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
MHT
File Year
23
File Sequence Number
24
Application Name
GRANT STREET GROW HOMES
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
2/16/2024
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2/16/2024 <br /> <br />4 <br />the plan that was not included in the application materials, future compliance is not sufficient to demonstrate <br />compliance with infrastructure provisions. <br />As to stormwater, here again the Applicant refers to a Utility Plan that does not exist in the record. <br />As for telecommunications lines, the Applicant fails to demonstrate how the utilities will be supplied to <br />each lot/dwelling as per statute. The code parameters surrounding the different asserted methodologies for <br />providing these utilities cannot be analyzed without a definite plan to compare with applicable provisions. <br />Furthermore, the adequacy of the proposed 4.22 foot wide easement for locating, accessing, replacing, <br />and servicing all utilities is also not demonstrated by substantial evidence. Can the proper trench for any <br />purported utility be located, accessed, replaced, or serviced in an easement that only has 4.22 feet between the <br />existing dwelling and the property line? <br />No reasonable person would rely on the Applicant’s unsupported and contradictory assertions and <br />citations to evidence not in the record. Without substantial and relevant evidence as to the sufficiency of the <br />proposed easements to locate, access, replace, and service, compliance with the provision cannot be <br />demonstrated. The Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with ORS 93.021(2)(c)(A), and for this reason, <br />the application should be denied. <br />II. The application fails to demonstrate compliance with EC 9.8210(3) <br /> <br />Despite requests in the Notice of Incomplete Application, the Applicant has failed to provide evidence <br />that the subject property is a legal lot as per EC 9.8210(3). <br />While the Applicant did provide some deeds in the supplemental materials, there is no narrative <br />explaining how those demonstrate that the lot was created legally. Additionally, it appears that several of the <br />supplied deeds are not for the subject property, and certainly the deed history is far from complete as there are <br />many deeds missing from the record when referencing the deed description card for the property. The most <br />important deed evidencing the creation of the property remains missing from the record.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.