05-09-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

�Ms. Jeanne Mabusth May 4, 1988 Page 5 conditioned upon something being done in the future is so routine that in fact all the forms of the resolutions the City passes each week and has followed for 15 years have a specific final section headed "Orders, Conclusions and Conditions." A most recent subdivision allowed with conditions was the Catherine Cram application where the subdivision left buildings inappropriately placed and was granted conditioned upon future correction of that status. Fourth, although information about the location of the drain field must eventually be obtained to ensure compliance with the City ordinances, it is not necessary in advance of approval which can and should be conditioned upon removal of any encroaching drain field in any event. When the information is required, however, the applicant cannot provide it. The land on which it is located belongs to someone else. The City, however, can find the location at any time it wishes by its own authority and even without an application. We believe that the staff has been withholding its approval of the application until recently because in the case of the usual application, the requested information and the removal of the drain field, if required, or other necessary actions are within the control of the applicant. That is not true here and the applicant has no leverage over Lot 1 or its owners. Fifth, granting preliminary and final subdivision approval of this application will not expose the City to risk of having its ordinances violated because, after approval, although the applicant cannot cause compliance, the City can cause any drain field on Lot 1 to be removed since (a) it has notified the owner of Lot 1 of the application, (b) that owner ha,: indicated in writing support for the application, (c) in order to get the City to approve the application the owner of Lot 1 through his attorney has promised in writing to locate and move the drain field as required, and (d) the general governmental powers of the City give it such authority in these circumstances. Sixth, the division line which is causing the problem appears to be an historically existing division line between these Lots, and the house and drain field appear to have been in existence prior to the original joinder of ownership in Spencer Smith. So the division itself should not be objectionable. Seventh, if the City records are accurate, the 1966 sale was illegal under City ordinances and the seller would be subject to peiialties for selling the land. But the ordinances do not make, the sale itself invalid, or give the City the right