My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-E
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-E
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:32 PM
Creation date
3/28/2017 9:26:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
LUBA Materials
Document_Date
8/31/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
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
Appeal Testimony re PDT 13-1 <br />REC"'EIVED <br />August 31, 2015 <br />Eugene Planning Commission U1 `i L C 1'~ <br />c/o Gabe Flock, Planner CITY OF City of Eugene BUILDING & PP,'*" [VCS <br />99 West 10th Avenue, <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />RECEIVED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING <br />Submitted by: Simon Trautman BUT PRIOR TO CLOSE OF RECORD <br />Send notices to: 2303 C Street, Bellingham, WA 98225 <br />Re: City File No. PDT 13-1; Oakleigh PUD <br />Opposition to Hearings Official Decision <br />Dear Commissioners: <br />On August 17, 2015, the Planning Commission voted to re-open the record for new evidence <br />and arguments. (Attachment A provides a transcript of the relevant comments made by <br />commissioners and staff during this meeting, and is incorporated herein.) <br />The motion adopted by the Planning Commission set the following time limits: <br />• New evidence allowed through close-of-business on August 31s. <br />• Rebuttal arguments through close-of-business September 41h. <br />• Final applicant rebuttal through close-of-business September 111h <br />The motion adopted by the Planning Commission allowed only the applicant and myself and <br />our legal representatives to contribute new, written testimony. <br />The motion adopted by the Planning Commission limited the scope to right-of-way, pavement <br />widths and parking, in relation to the safety of Oakleigh Lane. <br />Notwithstanding the adopted motion, ORS 197.763(7) requires: <br />"When a local governing body, planning commission, hearings body or hearings officer <br />reopens a record to admit new evidence, arguments or testimony, any person may raise <br />new issues which relate to the new evidence, arguments, testimony or criteria for <br />decision-making which apply to the matter at issue." <br />This letter provides further testimony to supplement the testimony I submitted on July 27, 2015. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 <br />Page 1 <br />August 31, 2015 <br />26 <br />'~-I I ~ fcbcttl'jC.il 1ls-{~'rnDn~ ~1 ~r~l(7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.