Laserfiche WebLink
1initial hearing, which is within the time required by ORS 227.186(4) and that the notice <br />2substantially complied with the content requirements of ORS 227.186(5). <br />3The individual written notice that the city gave in this matter was given within the <br />4deadline specified in ORS 227.186(4). Petitioner offers no reason to question the city’s <br />5assertion that all affected property owners were mailed individual written notice. Neither <br />6does petitioner make any attempt to argue that the individual written notice that the city <br />7mailed in this matter did not substantially comply with the substantive requirements of ORS <br />8227.186(5). Indeed petitioner’s entire substantive argument in support of this assignment of <br />9error is that “[i]t is not clear from the record that the required notice was given for either of <br />10the ordinances.” Petition for Review 48.Petitioner’s argument under this assignment of <br />11error is not sufficiently developed to demonstrate error. <br />12 The ninth assignment of error is denied. <br />13 Our resolution of the fifth and sixth assignments of error require that Ordinance <br />1420418 be remanded. Ordinance 20417 is affirmed. <br />was aware of the local proceedings that led to adoption of both ordinances and intervenor-petitioner <br />participated in those proceedings. <br />Page 40 <br />