Trautman/Conte v. City of Eugene

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Land Use
  • Date Filed: 09-08-2016
  • Case #: A162081
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Devore, J. for the Court; Duncan, P.J.; & Flynn, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 197.763(3), notice of a quasi-judicial hearing must describe the proceeding by explaining the nature of the application, the uses that could be authorized, and the criteria that apply to the application, and a general explanation of the requirements for submitting testimony, as well as a warning that a failure to raise an issue will waive it, precluding subsequent review of that issue.

Developer applied to City for approval of a PUD. Trautman submitted a letter in opposition, which entitled him to receive notice of any hearings.  The Eugene Planning Commission failed to give notice to Trautman of the Commission’s hearings or the Commission’s order allowing the PUD application.  The Commission then held an additional hearing, giving notice that Trautman would testify and no more evidence would be taken.  However, at the hearing, the Commission re-opened the record for new evidence and additional testimony.  The Court held that the re-opening of the record and allowance of additional testimony made the City’s notice misleading and therefore inadequate.  The portion of LUBA’s decision pertaining to the City’s notice is reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search