<br />BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL <br />FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE <br /> <br /> <br />ORDER DENYING REOPENING <br />In the Matter of Tentative Planned Unit ) <br />EVIDENTIARY RECORD <br />Development Application PDT 13-1 ) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />On October 2, 2013, the Hearings Official for the City of Eugene held a public hearing in <br />the above captioned application. Following the public testimony portion of the hearing, <br />the Hearings Official received a request to hold the record open. The Hearings Official <br />set an open record schedule as follows: 1) argument and evidence on any issue from any <br />party to be submitted by October 9, 2013, 2) argument and evidence from any party in <br />response to information submitted by October 9, 2013 was allowed until October 16, <br />2013, and 3) the applicant's final argument was due by October 23, 2013. <br /> <br />On October 16, 2013, Mr. Paul Conte submitted an objection to at least parts of six <br />documents submitted by the applicant on that same day. Exhibit PT.R-01. Also on <br />October 16, 2013, Mr. Conte submitted a document entitled “Rebuttal Testimony re <br />“Oakleigh-Co-Housing” PUD (PDT 13-1) Application.” Exhibit PT.R-02. In that <br />document he provides rebuttal argument to the applicant’s submissions to the record <br />made between October 2, 2013 and October 9, 2013. <br /> <br />In his October 16, 2013, “Objection” letter Mr. Conte asserts that the six documents <br />submitted by the applicant violated the Hearings Official’s instructions and could only be <br />included in the record if the Hearings Official reopened the record to allow their <br />submission. Based on this assertion, Mr. Conte requested “the record be left open until <br />October 23, 2013 to allow me and other opponents to submit additional evidence and <br />argument in response to the applicant's new evidence, pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(c) <br />and/or ORS 197.763(7).” <br /> <br />After the applicant submitted the final argument on October 23, 2013, Mr. Conte <br />submitted an October 25, 2013 request that the record be reopened to allow responsive <br />argument and the submission of evidence related at least to “right-of way” dedications as <br />discussed in two letters submitted by the applicant on October 16, 2013. Exhibits PT.R- <br />04 and PT.R-07. Again, Mr. Conte requested that those exhibits to the record be stricken <br />or that the record be reopened to allow response to those exhibits. <br /> <br />The Hearings Official treats this request is a request to reopen the record under ORS <br />197.763(7). However, Mr. Conte seems to fundamentally misunderstand the record <br />schedule set by the Hearings Official at the October 2, 2013 hearing. During the hearing, <br />the Hearings Official received a request to leave the written record open which triggered <br />the requirements of ORS 197.763(6)(c). Pursuant to that statute, the Hearings Official <br />left the record open for at least seven days, and an additional seven days (until October <br />16, 2013) for the specific purpose of allowing responsive comment to issues raised during <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />