LUBA Sends Tangent Proposal Back To The City...Again
As quoted in the Albany Democrat, September 13, 2006, The Land Use Board of Appeals, (LUBA) found fault with the city's decision to allow City Councilor Mel Brush to develop part of his 84-acre farm, for a second time. I was one of the 6 residents who appealed the city's decision. I appealed because the city denied me an opportunity to testify on what I thought was a new proposal by Councilor Brush to build 123 houses on nearly 50 acres. LUBA agreed, it was a new proposal. The city was at fault for denying me an opportunity to testify. Additionally, the Department of Land Conservation and Development was denied an opportunity to give written testimony, and LUBA agreed they also had the right to participate. More important to me was the city's decision to deny acceptance of many letters written by residents to the "New Proposal". I have been and will continue to be an advocate for the citizen's of Tangent to participate in all phases of land use decisions , as required by State Goal 1 and, as indicated by the LUBA decision, "the city's own plan guarantees its citizens a right to do so."
Email me if you would like a copy of the LUBA decision and/or a copy of the Democrat Herald's article. Click on "View my complete profile" below my picture, then click on "Email" below where it reads "Contact"
Or leave a comment here.
posted by Seaton McLennan @ 7:08 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Thank you Seaton for continuing to support the residents. We often feel left out. There aren't many towns left where citizens have a say in land use.
Once again we have been sucesful in gaining a remand back to the City. My question now is are they going to correct the problem and how? The frist decision from LUBA was ignored, will this one receive the same.
It appears that there was a case to answer.
However, eventually we are probably going to see both growth and building on Mel Brush's land. Hopefully the city and Mr. Brush can produce something that complies with the rules and LUBA's recommendations.
To be honest, I'd much rather see something like Mr. Brush's proposed development than some of the current properties in Tangent, which frankly are embarrassing.
Bear in mind that some residents spend all twelve months of a given year in the city and are also young enough that we'll possibly still be living here when the next comprehensive plan expires.
You should of course speak your mind on that which is important to you but also try to remember that some Tangent residents prefer living in the 21st century and you do not speak for all of us.
Nice blog by the way - a good idea for a discussion point, aside from council meetings.
Ms. Samard is wrong when she says that the first decision from Luba was ignored.
There were many subjects to remand back to the city to fix. They fixed the ones they could, and are trying to find the best way to fix the others. It's not that the city wanted to purposely "ignore" as you say, the matters at hand. It all is very complicated and is hard to address these issues when year after year the comp. plan goes un-fixed. That is where all the land-use decisions come from. It makes it hard for anyone wanting to split their property or sub-divide. It is the property owners right to try and apply to enhance their land. After all, it is THEIR land, something some of you are forgetting.
Cut something in half and some will still complain. Cut it in another half, will you still complain? I think so. Some are never satisfied.
If some residents don't want to live in a rural town, why do they move here?
Post a Comment
<< Home