Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP MAY 22, 1989 <br />'"30LICS SUPERVISORY IMPLEMENTATION CONTINUED <br />^ lore rapidly, he would be happy co adjust accordingly. <br />Councilmember Nettles questioned whether option 2 would <br />utilize the same process used for selecting the second <br />supervisory position? Kilbo replied than the process wc-.la ce <br />very similar. <br />It was moved by Mayor Grabeb, seconded by Councilmember <br />Nettles, to accept the information from the Police Chief <br />regarding his imolementation plan for the third supervisor. <br />Motion, Ayes=3, Peterson, Nay due to the further delay. <br />Mavor 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 setter to .he C^t/ <br />indicating that the responding Police Oriicers nad saved he. <br />life. <br />ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MORATORIUM <br />City Administrator Bernhardson presenteo an interim <br />ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. Bernhardson said tha. <br />the recommendation is for a 90-day duration period. <br />Councilmember Goetten asked if a moratorium was required <br />with everv ordinance amendment. She e.-<?ressed her aisli.<e or <br />.moratoriums and questioned whether this particular cne__ was <br />-•‘ecessary? Zoning Administrator Maousth interjected .ha. the <br />■moratorium should have been placed on accessory structures two <br />years ago. Goetten concurred with Mabustn adding .hat it se-med <br />senseless to propose a moratorium when the amendment was only <br />weeks from adoption. <br />City Attorney Barrett explained that the reason for <br />proDOsing a moratorium would be in the event an applicant had <br />rights under the existing ordinance, the City could not deny the <br />Application. He said that the City did not have the right to <br />delay an applicant merely on the premise of an upcoming ordinance <br />amenLent. A moratorium allows the City to legally delay an <br />action pending an ordinance amendment. Barrett further explaine <br />that if the City delayed an appli-^ation which in some for <br />resulted in dSnag^e to tL applicant, the City could be sued if a <br />moratorium did not exist. <br />It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember <br />Hetties, to table ^his^matter to the June 12, 1989 Council <br />Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays=0, Motion passed. <br />“^^“Ad^st^“ernhardson provided a brief review of <br />this aVp^lica“tion? The results of the .feasibility ^ were <br />“U:rvrd^n%^r‘m^%i\^^Vo ^aU^^^lk^rer^