My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Testimony Through 02-20-2026
>
OnTrack
>
PDF
>
2025
>
PDF 25-01
>
Public Testimony Through 02-20-2026
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2026 4:06:26 PM
Creation date
3/2/2026 4:06:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDF
File Year
25
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Braewood Hills 3rd Addition
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
2/23/2026
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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
From:Wes Van Winkle <br />To:GIOELLO Nick R <br />Subject:Public comment regarding Braewood Hills 3rd Addition, Final PUD (PDT 25-01), and Standards Review (SDR 25- <br />02) <br />Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 4:32:29 PM <br />[EXTERNAL ] <br />Dear Mr. Gioello, <br />I serve as president of Save Videra Oak Meadow, a nonprofit organization <br />opposed to the development of the 15-acre property referenced above. <br />SVOM and I are represented by attorney Charles Woodward IV in this <br />matter, and Mr. Woodward has already submitted comments stating our <br />position with regard to this pending action. However, I have also prepared a <br />few additional comments and am submitting them in this email. <br />The application should be denied in its entirety for noncompliance with the <br />Eugene Code planning sections noted herein. In particular, there are several <br />problems with the Standards Review documents. <br />The first area of noncompliance concerns the requirements of the Eugene <br />Code for setbacks from Category B wetlands and a Category C stream (also <br />designated a Goal 5 stream) on the property. It should first be noted that the <br />application and site maps submitted by the applicant assume the issuance of <br />a wetlands fill/removal permit from the DEQ and ODSL. The developer has <br />applied for this permit, but it has not yet been granted. However, even if the <br />permit were to be granted, the application fails to comply with Eugene Code <br />requirements for setbacks. It is also possible that the permit will not be <br />granted in its entirety, or perhaps will not be granted at all, in which case the <br />application will obviously have to be denied. Solely for the purposes of this <br />comment, I will assume hypothetically that the permit is granted and that <br />the wetlands are filled or removed as indicated in the site map. However, <br />Save Videra Oak Meadow opposes granting this permit, as I do also. <br />The proposed private street extension crosses a Category B wetland area <br />which requires a 25-foot setback zone. (Eugene Code section 9.4920(2)(b).) <br /> The application relies upon a map which appears to have been accepted by <br />the Oregon Department of State Lands, within the meaning of the foregoing <br />section, in which the wetland is identified as Wetland 2B. However, the map <br />clearly shows several locations where the wetland is wider than the required
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.