Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Minutes And Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says minutes omit safety testimony, plans LUBA appeal over waterfront remodel
Summary
A pair of citizens urged the planning commission to correct its May 13 minutes to reflect testimony that construction methods created immediate safety hazards and argued that the commission or staff erred in treating a demolition-as-remodel. One speaker said he will file a LUBA appeal if the Notice of Decision is not issued.
Steven Toske, a St. Helens resident and frequent commenter on planning matters, told the commission he reviewed the May 13 hearing record and said the minutes omit repeated testimony that chosen construction methods created immediate safety hazards at the waterfront remodel site.
"...the chosen construction methods by the contractor resulted in an unsafe condition, which could cause the immediate death and significant bodily injury of anyone on a construction site," Toske said, urging that the minutes be corrected to reflect that testimony.
Toske argued the project did not meet the local development-code definition of a remodel (which he said requires maintaining the same building footprint and other standards) and that proceeding without a variance or a public hearing was unlawful. He said a Notice of Decision is required to trigger the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) filing period and that he intends to file a LUBA complaint.
Brady Preen also spoke during topics from the floor, saying he objected to multiple individuals (naming Charles Kasner and Mr. Rosengard) being on the commission and criticizing what he described as an overly permissive "grace" policy. Preen suggested that if a remodel cannot retain at least 50% of a structure, it should be treated as a demolition rather than a remodel.
Commission members discussed whether the minutes are a summary (recorded meeting exists) and accepted a motion to amend the May 13 minutes to include more testimony on the contested hearing.
The commission did not make a final legal determination during the meeting about the underlying waterfront project; Toske said he will pursue an appeal if procedural requirements (including a Notice of Decision) are not met.
Ending: Commissioners asked staff to ensure the minutes accurately reflect the hearing record. The public commenter indicated an intent to pursue LUBA remedies if the record and notice requirements are not satisfied.
