Laserfiche WebLink
^age2 <br />. • • 1 •. •4,2005 <br />Id my diflcusiions wiOi City officials about this, Oiere is appaieatly a belief Out it was the <br />letqitieftthfHty***p*^"gTwtMim OHmanM WbeOierornot <br />Oie City has Oie legal discretion to do so, die City did not exempt pending qiplications fiom dds <br />Interim Qcdinaiioe. One of the nridn of moratoria emtctcd pursuant to Miim. Stat <br />}4d2^SS, aubd. 4, as this one was, is to freeze development, sometimes first learned about from <br />a pending ^Kcation. Therefore, if it was the intention of the Interim Ordinance to exempt <br />certain properties, that intention would certainly and clearly have to appear in the ordinance, <br />itself It is absent here. <br />Further, although Section 6 of the ordmance allows fiv variances, it is out understanding <br />that no variances have been sou^ finm *he Board of Adjustment under die City Code by this <br />apidicant Moreover, it is doubtful that this applicant could satisfy die necessary criteria for die <br />grant of such a variance in any event, even if one were sought. <br />This Interim Ordinance provides; <br />Hid Council, dieiefine, finds that it is necessary to stmty die <br />impact of dmelopment under current ordinanees to determine <br />edirtherdleyfillfill the underiying purposes of die City’s land use <br />and Doning provisioos. <br />UntU diat atuity is eompleted, it would be arbitraiy to allow case>by>case development in the <br />Moratorium Area u psoposed by the current qplicadon. Such case^y-case development would <br />badly confound any attempt to stutty existing ooodidons in the Moratotittm Area a^ ovecduow <br />die essential purpose of die rooiatorium. <br />Very truly yours, <br />THG/yd <br />0,4 <br />TbomuROo <br />1