DIR1991-00010 DATE: 9/16/1991
CODE SECTIONS: 18.390
I TOPIC: Contents of Notice of Public Hearing - Quasi - Judicial
* City Attorney's Office Interpretation
INTERPRETATION: Contents of Notice of Public Hearing - Description of Hearings Procedure
Under the holding of Wissusik v. Yamhill Co., LUBA No. 90 -050, November 13, 1990, a
notice of public hearing is required to provide a general explanation of the right to request
that the record of the initial evidentiary hearing remain open pursuant to ORS 197.763 (6).
LUBA has interpreted this notice to be a requirement of ORS 197.763 (3) (j) ( "Include a
general explanation of the requirements for submission of testimony and the procedure
for conduct of hearings. ") I think that the public hearing notice should be revised to
include the following:
The Planning Commission may continue the public hearing to another meeting to obtain
additional information, or close the public hearing and take action on the application. If a
person submits evidence in support of the application less than 20 days before the
evidentiary hearing, any party is entitled to a continuance of the hearing. Unless there is a
continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary
hearing, the record shall remain open for at least 7 days after the hearing."
The Notice of Public Hearing discussing the "raise it or waive it" issue should be modified
to specify that this "precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals."
• O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN
RECEIVED PLANNING
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING
1727 N.W. Hoyt Street S E P 18 1991
Portland, Oregon 97209
TELEPHONE: (503) 222 -4402
FAX: (503) 243 -2944
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION ,
/
DATE: September 16, 1991
TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner
Jerry Offer, Associate Planner
City of Tigard
FROM: Michael C. Robinson, City Attorney's Office
RE: Application by T. Michael & Associates
I have reviewed Attorney Stark Ackerman's letter of September 12th
and his suggested revisions to the Notice of Public Hearing on the
application by T. Michael & Associates. I have also reviewed the
draft notice of this public hearing prepared by the City. I have
the following comments:
1. Applicable approval criteria
It appears to me that comprehensive plan policies §§ 7.2.1,
7.4.4 and 8.1.3 may be approval criteria because of the
definition of "development" contained in the Tigard Community,
,Development Code. This application maker - mater aT
, in the use of the land. Therefore, these plan policies could
�` be construed as applicable at this stage.
2. 0 Contents of Notice of Public Hearing
A. Description of Hearings Procedure
Under the holding of Wissusik v. Yamhill Co., LUBA No.
90 -050, November 13, 1990, a notice of public hearing is
required to provide a general explanation of the right
to request that the record of the initial evidentiary
hearing remain open pursuant to ORS 197.763(6). LUBA has
interpreted this notice to be a requirement of ORS
197.763(3)(j) ( "Include a general ex 1 tion of the
requirements for submission of testimony an the
procedure for conduc othearings. ") I think that
.."'"
draft notice should be revised to include the following
(I have taken this from Mr. Ackerman's proposed
language):
O'DUNNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN
Memo re: Application by T. Michael & Associates
September 16, 1991
Page 2
"The Planning Commission may continue the public
hearing to another meeting to obtain additional
information, or close the public hearing and take
action on the application. If a person submits
,./11/0 evidence in support of the application less than 20
days before the evidentiary hearing, any party is
entitled to a continuance of the hearing. Unless
there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary
hearing, the record shall remain open for at least
7 days after the hearing."
I do not think that it is necessary to rewrite all of
this portion of the Notice of Public Hearing as suggested
./ar by Mr. 'Ackerman.
0 �✓ I agree with Mr. Ackerman's recommendation that the
paragraph in the Notice of Public Hearing discussing the
" ' "raise it or waive it" issue should be modified to
specify that this "precludes an appeal to the Land Use
f Plea se Board of Appeals."
call me so that we can discuss this.
Original Memorandum to: City of Tigard
Copy to: City of Tigard /Community Development File
MCR:dd
9/16/91
mcr \Tigard \900244 \Bewersdorff.Me 1