Document text
Ashland, Oregon HOME Valley & State Sports Nation & World Opinion/Editorial Classifieds Business Columnists Local Issues Obituaries Weather Archive Revels Etcetera Backpage Hot Topics Most Viewed Forum Photo Galleries Video Readers Polls O-Zone Online Games Movie Preview Special Sections Real Estate Guide Menu Guide Shakespeare Subscribe Contact Us Rate Card Place an Ad February 26, 2005 Court rejects Bemis appeal for 2nd time By Robert Plain Ashland Daily Tidings The Oregon Court of Appeals has rejected a petition for reconsideration on behalf of Ed and Tanya Bemis, who proposed to build a 81,212-square-foot building behind the Ashland Springs Hotel. The decision could mean the Bemis project has run out of appellate options and is therefore no longer an option for downtown Ashland. Neither the Bemises nor their attorney could be reached for comment and it is therefore unknown if an appeal was filed with the state Supreme Court before the Feb. 16 deadline. "We just got word today that the Court of Appeals has denied their petition," Sharlene Stevens said, the legal assistant and claims manager for the city of Ashland. "It's up to the Bemises and their attorney if they are going to appeal." The Bemis project first made headlines 13 months ago when Ed and Tanya Bemis, a local married couple that owns a development firm, proposed to build a five-story mixed-use parking, condominium and commercial space building downtown. Although the Planning Commission approved the project, the city council reasoned that it violated an existing "Big Box Ordinance." Greg Hathaway, the legal representation for the Bemises, insisted that the town was retroactively applying a different ordinance to his clients and, together, they took the matter to the Land Use Board of Appeals in Salem on Feb. 18, 2004. On Oct. 13, LUBA found in favor of the city of Ashland and the Bemises subsequently filed an appeal with the Oregon Court of Appeals on Nov. 3. "In our view, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the city's reinterpretation was 'the product of a design to act arbitrarily or inconsistently from case to case,'" wrote the LUBA panel in its decision. --> Copyright © 2006 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.