Laserfiche WebLink
HIMUTBS OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP MAY 22« 1989 <br />POLICE SUPERVISORY IMPLEMENTATION CONTINUED <br />more rapidly, he would be happy to adjust ace,..--'- <br />CounciImember Nettles questioned whether option 2 would <br />utilize the same process used for selecting the second <br />supervisory position? Kilbo replied that the process would be <br />very similar. <br />It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember <br />M«+.t:les» to accept the information from the Police Chief <br />regarding his implementation plan for the third supervisor. <br />Motion, Ayes=3, Peterson, Nay due to the further delay. <br />Mayor Grabek took this opportunity to commend the Police <br />Department for their efforts regarding a medical emergency <br />involving Ms. Charlotte Hill. She wrote a letter to the City <br />indicating that the responding Police Officers had saved her <br />life. <br />ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MORATORIUM . . <br />City Administrator Dernhardson presented an interim <br />ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. Eernhardson said that <br />the recommendation is for a 90-day duration period. <br />Councilmember Goetten asked if a moratorium was required <br />with every ordinance amendment. She expressed her dislike of <br />morator^L and questioned whether this particular one was <br />necessary? Zoning Administrator Mabusth interjected that the <br />moratorium should have been placed on accessory structures two <br />years ago. Goetten concurred with Mabusth adding that <br />Hnseless to propose a moratorium when the amendment was only <br />weeks from adoption. <br />City Attorney Barrett explained that the reason for <br />oroDOsinq a moratorium would be in the event an applicant had <br />lights under the existing ordinance, the City <br />application. He said that the City did not have the r^g.^t to <br />delay an applicant merely on the premise of an upcoming ordinance <br />amendment. A moratorium allows the ^^^rrett \ulthe/elcplained action pending an ordinance amendment. Barrett further p . <br />thit if the City delayed an application which in some form <br />resulted in dfmag'e to tL applicint, the City could be sued if a <br />moratorium did not exist. <br />It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember <br />Nettles, to table this matter t° the June 12, 1989 <br />Meeting. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. <br />LITIHGSTOH AVBHUB DRAINAGE , brief review ofCity Administrator Bernhardson <br />this »PP “”^i°"-^_^^®l'//"i^9l9°Counci^^^ Ms! Cuff <br />?ece!fefinlorm"a%io"n“to tlke“a=k to her neighbors. Since^that <br />irai;agra%%^rutt®lesserc%s\"1fnd%S"bm^^^^^^ a°p“et’ition to the