Case ID: or-app_215/html/0284-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

On respondents-cross-petitioners’ petition for reconsideration filed July 25 of opinion filed July 11 (214 Or App 46, 162 P3d 1059);
    petitioner-cross-respondent City of Medford’s response to respondents-cross-petitioners’ petition for reconsideration filed July 31;
    and respondent-cross-respondent Cedar Landing, LLC’s response to petition for reconsideration filed August 1;
    petition for reconsideration denied September 26, 2007
    NORTH EAST MEDFORD NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION and Tom Michaels, Respondents Cross-Petitioners, and George EBERT, James Sharp, and Lois Nobles, Respondents, v. CITY OF MEDFORD, Petitioner Cross-Respondent, and CEDAR LANDING, LLC, Respondent Cross-Respondent.
    
    Land Use Board of Appeals
    2006132; A134897
    168 P3d 1158
    Corrine C. Sherton and Johnson & Sherton PC for petition.
    Lori J. Cooper for response of petitioner-cross-respondent.
    Timothy E. Brophy, Dominic M. Campanella, and Brophy, Mills, Schmor, Gerking, Brophy & Paradis, LLP, for response of respondent-cross-respondent.
    Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman, Judge, and Simpson, Judge pro tempore.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Cross-petitioners ask for reconsideration of our opinion, North East Medford Neighborhood v. City of Medford, 214 Or App 46, 162 P3d 1059 (2007), affirming the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision remanding the City of Medford’s approval of a consolidated application for a preliminary planned unit development and for removal of an overlay zone. Cross-petitioners contend that we failed to address a portion of their assignment of error, in which they contended that LUBA erred in allowing both applications to be approved based on standards other than those in effect when the applications were first submitted. Both cross-respondents contend that cross-petitioners are mistaken and that we did, in fact, address — and reject — all aspects of cross-petitioners’ assignment of error. Cross-respondents note that we quoted from LUBA’s disposition of cross-petitioners’ assignment and then declared that “[w]e agree with LUBA and conclude that it did not err in determining that the city’s consolidation of applications in this case was not precluded by law.” Id. at 55. We agree with cross-respondents and deny the petition for reconsideration.

Petition for reconsideration denied.