My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Applicant's Final Argument
>
OnTrack
>
Z
>
2015
>
Z 15-5
>
Applicant's Final Argument
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2016 4:00:35 PM
Creation date
10/13/2016 1:03:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
Z
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
5
Application Name
LAUREL RIDGE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
10/12/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS PC <br />OREGON LAND USE LAW <br />375 W. 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 204 <br />EUGENE, OR 97401 <br />TEL: 541.343.8596 <br />WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />October 12, 2016 <br />Mr. Fred Wilson <br />Eugene Hearings Official <br />c/o Eugene Planning and Development <br />99 W. Broadway <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: LaurelRidge Zone Change (City File Z 15-5) <br />Applicant's Final Argument <br />Dear Mr. Wilson: <br />BILL KLOOS <br />BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />This is the final argument in this local proceeding, which is the city's third attempt to give the <br />applicant the zoning designations it is entitled to under the Metro Plan. <br />We start with the listing of the basics relating to: (1) the responsibilities of the parties; (2) the <br />scope of the remand; (3) the data that Hearings Official has to work with. We conclude with a <br />short argument in part (4). <br />1. The responsibilities of the parties. <br />As the Hearings Official pointed out in Round 2, the applicant is entitled to the zoning it is <br />requesting, which is R-1 zoning for that part of the subject property that has an LDR Metro Plan <br />designation. <br />Affording the applicant the R-1 zoning it is entitled to requires the Ci to identify a line <br />separating the LDR and POS plan designations on the subject property. The "line" must be a <br />metes and bounds line, not a pencil or pen line that has a greater or lesser width on the ground <br />based upon the type of pen and the scale of the map. <br />The location of the boundary line is a question of law, because it is on the Metro Plan, and the <br />Metro Plan itself is city law. As an issue of law, the location of the line is not something to be <br />determined by consensus, or as a matter of policy, or by majority of votes at a hearing. Knutson <br />Family LLC v. City ofEugene, 200 Or App 292, 300 n5, 114 P3d 1150 (2005). There is only one <br />right answer. <br />The applicant proposed a boundary line, reduced to a metes and bounds line. The applicant went <br />first with a proposal, not because the applicant has the burden of proof as to where the line is, but <br />because the applicant had to file the application, and the application had to ask for something. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.