Laserfiche WebLink
05''ll/99 15:31 MO.882 POOS <br />LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.ll.p. <br />5. <br />6. <br />superintendent, made sure to drive cars up and down the road at le:»<t several <br />limes a year in addition to moving maintenance equipment. (Jennnch deposition <br />testimony.) The access was used to transport all Woodhill Country Club traffic <br />on several occasions when County Road 15 was blocked. In the 1 990 ’s the road <br />continued to be used for movement of equipment. Throughout the tunc period, <br />the access was also used for bicycle traffic and pedestrian traffic. (Fredrickson <br />deposition testimony) <br />Once a property owner has a driveway that abuts a public street and once a <br />conditional use permit is granted that does not restrict the use of such access, there <br />is nothing in the Orono ordinance or CUP that says how many times a year the <br />property owner has to ride a bike down a driveway, walk down a driveway, drive <br />a car down a driveway, or drive a tractor down a driveway in order to maintain the <br />right of access both as a property right and as a right under the Conditional Use <br />Permit. <br />Woodhill Country Club’s property was specially assessed for the paving of <br />Woodhill Avenue. Not only does Woodhill have a property right of access and a <br />right under the 1968 CUP, its property was assessed for the paving and <br />improvement of Woodhill Avenue in 1987-1989. In their letter, the Storches <br />suggest Woodhilfs special assessment was not because Woodhill's property <br />abutted Woodhill Avenue and was bencfitted by the improvement. That <br />suggestion is directly contradicted by the resolution adopted by (he Orono City <br />Council. Special assessments are assessed against land, they are not a tax on <br />individuals or entities. State law requires that a special assessment can only be <br />assessed against land that is actually benefitted by the improvement. In assessing <br />59,464.70 against PID #2-117-23-12-0001, the Orono City Council Resolution <br />No. 2682 made specific findings that the Woodhill Country Club parcel “abutted <br />Woodhill Avenue ” and that the Woodhill property containing the west driveway <br />was “benefitted by tb? proposed improvement in the amount of the <br />assessment levied against it” <br />1988 maintenance building CUP did not void the 1968 CUP. In 1988, Woodhill <br />Countiy Club obtained a permit in order to construct an accessory maintenance <br />building. The permit related solely to the construction of that structure and did not <br />void or limit the 1968 CUP to operate a golf course and country club. Woodhill <br />agreed not to use the Woodhill Avenue access for movement of construction <br />machinery during the construction. There is no suggestion that W’oodhill made any <br />!>>:■ lll9t04M <br />J