10-11-1999 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 11, 1999 ( #S) #2492 RICKAND GAIL L UZAICH, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD -VARIANCES • AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued recommending that the Restoration Plan, variance for the retaining wall, and the conditional use permit for the small amount of fill be approved. This is all subject to the property owners agreeing to sign the conditional use permit and the restoration agreement. Barrett said that two weeks ago he sent a memo to Mr. Reznick to tell him that the City was determined to see a Restoration Agreement and to point out to him the legal authority of the City to compel one. If someone cuts trees and vegetation in violation of the zoning code, the City can repair to the District Court and get an order of mandamus requiring the property owner to restore it. Barrett also cited him the statutory requirement that the conditional use permit would have to be filed against the land. He did not hear from Mr. Reznick and finally reached him last Wednesday. Barrett said he told Mr. Reznick the matter would be on the agenda tonight and a decision would have to be made because the time period would be expiring unless he and the City mutually agreed to an extension. Mr. Reznick is not present at tonight's meeting. Barrett said he wanted to be certain that the Council members understand the legal implications of the document. He said there are three separate matters. They are a variance to allow the fill, a conditional use permit which allows the regrading, and a restoration plan. He said that nothing in the language of the conditional use permit or the variance has to do with restoration. The restoration plan is a separate piece which staff had hoped to treat as a is condition which could be wrapped in and made enforceable. Barrett said he would like to provide a short amendment to the staff's conclusions and recommend that the Council pass the proposal if they like it substantively. By his amendments, the City could include the restoration agreement, the exhibit which shows the restoration plan and state specifically that the conditional use permit and restoration plan are to be filed against the land. If the applicant refuses that, Barrett thinks the City should prevent any further work on the land until the proper conditional use permit and variance are granted. Secondly, Barrett said the City should commence an enforcement action against the property owner in order to compel the restoration plan, not just to be accepted, but to be filed against the land. This is important because if the land is sold tomorrow, there is no way to compel the subsequent owner to maintain the restoration unless there is an order filed against the land. Most of the trees can be cut at will because the replacements will be so small and the City has no ordinance to prevent them being cut. Sansevere asked if the restoration plan could be enforced against the new owners if the property was sold tomorrow. Barrett replied that in his view, unless the City gets some type of agreement to file the plan and the City's rights of entry and repair against the land, then the new owner is not bound by it. 0 Page 12