Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Council Action continued <br />page 4 of 4 <br />November 22, 1996 <br />Lafayette Ridge <br />since it was required as density credit for their subdivision. As long as LRHA does not own <br />Outlot C, the individual properties must be considered as non-conforming and the special <br />setbacks, etc. approved with the subdivision would be considered invalid. Since John O'Sullivan <br />is the only adjacent propeny owner other than LRHA or the 5 individual >^,afayette Ridge lot <br />owners, the risk in releasing this for public sale to adjacent owne-s is that O’Sullivan could pick <br />it up and it would then not be serving its originally intended density credit purpose. <br />It appears the cleanest way to accomplish the goal of LRHA re-acquisition is to request a <br />cancellation of the forfeiture due to a City error in the method of assessment. In this process, the <br />City still has the right to conclude how much of the assessment must be paid by LRHA. This may <br />also allow the penalty fees to be dropped, but I am advised there will be some added costs passed <br />on by the County in processing a cancellation. <br />Council should allow LRHA representatives to state their case for a waiver of the assessment <br />based on the degree of benefit shown. However, in staffs opinion the assessment should not be <br />waived based solely on the lack of assessment notification, since that is not the City's fault, nor <br />solely on the fact that an Outlot was assessed rather than the individual lots which benefit by its <br />existence. <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: <br />1.Determine whether the special assessment for street lighting should be totally waived, <br />partially waived, or not waived. <br />2.Choose one of the following processes to accomplish the reconveyance: <br />A. Sale to adjacent landowners only. <br />B. Sale to the Orono HRA for resale to the LRHA. <br />C. Make application for cancellation of forfeiture due to City error.