HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Board of Appeals 1984-2-1
.-
.-
.'
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Joe Hudzikiewicz
RE:
Appeal of Hearings Official Decision to Deny a Zone
Suburban Residential/Interim Urbanizing Combining
Residential Professional District. (PZC 83-049)
Applicant! Appellant: Leon Keefe
Change from RA/U
District to RP
APPEAL PROCEDURE
This application and appeal are being processed in accordance with the newly
adopted revised procedures in Lane Code 14,$00,
fo
The first step in the appeal process is for the Board to decide whether or not
it desires to hear the appeal. The decision, (in the form of an order) to hold
a hearing must show compliance with one of more, of the following criteria:
1. The issue is of Countywide significance,
2, The issue will reoccur with frequency and there is a need for policy
guidance.
3, The issue involves a unique environmental resource.
4, The Planning Director at Hearings Official recommends review,
of!.
If the Board decides to hold a hearing, then such a hearing will be scheduled
within 14 days of the Board's decision. At the on-the-record hearing the
Board may admit additional testimony and other evidence without holding a
de novo hearing, if it is satisfied that the testimony or other evidence
could not have been presented at the initial hearing.
HISTORY OF ACTION
1. August 17, 1983, Received application to rezone 2.26 acres from RA/U
District to RP District to allow a professional office center.
2, September 29 and October 27, 1983. Hearings Official Hearings,
3. lI70vember 8, 1983, Hearings Official decision to deny rezoning request
based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate that the Metro Plan
designates the property for commercial use or that an intensification of
land use, without a demonstration of imminent annexation (and
acquisition of key minimum urban services), is consistent with the Metro
Plan's urbanization policies,
4, November 21, 1983. A timely appeal was filed, The applicant maintains
that he should not be required to annex to the City of Springfield.
5,
November 22, 1983, The Hearings Official
reconsideration of his decision is not warranted.
that
indicates
ISSUE
Applicant's burden of proof demonstrating compliance with the Metro Plan.
The Hearings Official found that the applicant:
a
~sSS la..V\~'^ S-\-.
February 1, 1984 - Keefe Appeal
page 1
<1
.-
.~
.
.
1. Did not submit any conclusive evidence indicating that the subject
property is within a commercial plan designation, Evidence indicates
that the property is infact outside a commercial designation and within a
medium density residential designation; and
2. Failed to address the Plan's Growth Management and Urban Service Area
Policies which "mandate that Lane County discourage urban development in
urbanizable areas and demand that conversion of lands from urbanizable to
urban be accomplished only through annexation which shall occur when a
minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to an
area in an orderly and efficient manner,"
The applicant's appeal is based on the Hearing's Official exceeded his
jurisdiction and rendered a decision that is unconstitutional.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Do not hear. Allow the Applicant/Appellant to proceed directly to LUBA and
avoid additional delay to achieving a final decision.
February 1, 1984,- Keefe Appeal
page 2