Appeal Agenda 2025-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

applications that are not. ORS 197.522(3) allows an applicant to amend its application or to propose reasonable conditions to make its application consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations. *** ORS 197.522 does not, however, authorize the applicant to achieve this end outside the public hearing process or without giving the public an opportunity to participate. The applicant cannot simply amend its application “on the fly” - or introduce new evidence into the record after the record has closed for new evidence – and demand that ORS 197.522 entitles it to an approval. Although the applicant’s materials could have been worded more clearly, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant did not intend to invoke ORS 197.522 before the Hearings Official. In the applicant’s August 14, 2024, submission, the applicant mentions ORS 197.522 only one time (page 3), stating: The applicant is also entitled to amend the proposal, including with modifications and additional evidence, if that is what is needed for approval. See generally ORS 197.522. The applicant believes that it is entitled to approval, as submitted here and suggested for modest changes, under clear and objective standards. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant did not intend to invoke ORS 197.522 to amend the application, but instead intended to remind the Hearings Official of the applicant’s entitlement under ORS 197.522 to amend the application in the event the application was denied. The applicant’s appeal statement confirms this understanding. The Planning Commission finds that nothing in the applicant’s submitted materials invokes a 197.522 proceeding before the Hearings Official, and the applicant’s second open record submittal did not modify the applications. The applicant’s submittals to date have been appropriately limited to evidence, argument and proposed conditioning in response to staff’s post-hearing submittals. For all the reasons discussed above, the Planning Commission reverses the portion of the Hearings Official’s decision rejecting the new evidence submitted by the applicant during the second open record period. Because the Planning Commission finds that all the applicant’s testimony (evidence and argument) submitted on August 14, 2024, is responsive to testimony submitted during the first open record period, the Planning Commission will consider that testimony as part of the record in this appeal to the extent it is relevant to applicable approval criteria and/or conditions of approval. Appeal Issue #2: Applicant argues that because the subject property is listed on the Scenic Sites Working Paper Figure H-2, it is a Goal 5 resource; therefore, the tree preservation standards referenced in EC 9.8325 do not apply and the Hearings Official erred by denying applicant’s application. Regarding Goal 5 resources and the inclusion of the Scenic Sites Working Paper Figure H-2 as evidence, the applicant raises three sub-issues: Planning Commission Agenda 01/28/2025 Page 16 of 42