My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-H
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-H
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:32 PM
Creation date
3/28/2017 9:27:41 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.
/
3
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
• <br />• <br />• <br />August 31, 2015 <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o Gabe Flock, Planner <br />City of Eugene <br />99 West 10th Avenue, <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Appeal Testimony re PDT 13-1 <br />Submitted by: Paul Conte <br />1461 W.10"' Ave., Eugene, OR 97402 <br />Re: City File No. PDT 13-1; Oakleigh PUD <br />Opposition to Hearings Official Decision <br />Dear Commissioners: <br />CI ~ OF ELIGEt4E <br />BUILDING CI= Mif "SVCS <br />RECEIVED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING <br />BUT PRIOR TO CLOSE OF RECORD <br />On August 17, 2015, the Planning Commission voted to re-open the record for new evidence <br />and arguments. <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 />I have attached a copy of the request I submitted on August 20, 2015. <br />This letter provides my testimony. <br />Attached you will find the specs for older fire apparatus. Note that even these older trucks are 9 <br />to 10 feet wide. Accordingly, two of these trucks cannot safely pass one another on Oakleigh <br />Road, thereby putting at risk residents and fire fighters. <br />Therefore the OMC PUD application fails to meet EC 9.8320(5) and (6), and this application <br />must be denied. <br />Respectfully, <br /> <br />.0 Paul T. Conte <br />238 <br />'DT )-A- I <br />Co,,+e esfi +~~Un~a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.