New Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6' <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS <br />OF THE STATE OF OREGON <br />HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF <br />LANE COUNTY and HOME BUILDERS <br />CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, <br />Petitioners, <br />vs. <br />CITY OF EUGENE, <br />LUBA Nos. 2006 -023 and 2006 -024 <br />CITY'S RESPONSE TO <br />PETITIONERS' MOTION AND <br />PROPOSED REPLY BRIEF <br />Respondent. <br />Petitioners request permission to file a Reply Brief "to address new matters raised in <br />Respondent's brief" Petitioners' Reply Brief addresses two issues that they assert are "new <br />matters." Respondent City of Eugene ( "The City ") objects to Section A of Petitioners' Reply <br />Brief on the grounds that this Section of the Reply Brief does not address a new matter raised in <br />the City's response brief In response to Section B of Petitioners' Reply Brief, the City provides <br />a brief response herein. <br />A. The City did not raise a new matter in responding to Petitioners' Fourth <br />Assignment of Error. <br />Pursuant to OAR 661- 010 -0039, LUBA may allow Petitioner to file a reply brief to <br />respond to "new matters" raised in a response brief. Petitioners' Fourth Assignment of Error <br />asserts that, pursuant to ORS 227.186(2), the City was required to adopt the PROS Plan by <br />ordinance. The entirety of Petitioners' Fourth Assignment of Error consists of two sentences. <br />In response to Petitioners' two - sentence assignment of error, the City argues that LUBA <br />has consistently held that it will not elevate form over substance when reviewing an enactment <br />PaLze 1 - CITY'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION AND PROPOSED REPLY BRIEF <br />