Oregon State Land Use Board Sends Case Back to Medford

State sends Wal-Mart case back to Medford [Mail Tribune (Ore.)]

A state land use appeals decision issued Friday is a big win for a group opposing a new Wal-Mart Supercenter in south Medford.

Medford’s City Council will hear debate over a Wal-Mart Supercenter traffic study at least once more before a final decision on whether the massive store can be built.

The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) ruled Friday that the city was incorrect in denying a local citizens group the right to participate in proceedings about the store in November 2005. The city attorney denied the group the right to speak during one of the hearings, saying it had lost standing when it failed to file a brief in a 2004 LUBA appeal.

But the board ruled Friday the city must conduct additional proceedings to let the petitioner talk.

A citizens group called Medford Citizens for Responsible Development, led by Talent City Councilwoman Wendy Siporen, has argued the developers of the 207,000-square-foot Wal-Mart Supercenter project should have been required to conduct a comprehensive traffic study for the site, which would have made the giant retailer responsible for building any street improvements made necessary by traffic the store would produce. The project is proposed for the former Miles Field site.

Siporen said the ruling is a victory for the citizens group and a victory for the process.

“Obviously we’re happy and we’re looking forward to presenting our case that a traffic study is necessary,” she said.

City Attorney John Huttl said in an e-mail that “some of the comments in the decision are inappropriate and not supported by the record” and he would evaluate the decision and give city officials his analysis of the options available. The city has 21 days to appeal the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Wal-Mart representatives have argued that the city cannot legally require them to do a comprehensive study at this time. A traffic study for the property was completed in 1991 at the time of a zoning change. The City Council approved the project after numerous hearings.

“The city presumably will be required to adopt new or supplemental findings at the conclusion of those proceedings,” Friday’s ruling reads.

Debra Frye, LUBA representative, said the city’s ultimate decision can again be appealed.

Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Monday, September 10, 2007

Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version