12-13-1999 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, 1999 0 ( #7) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLYAVENUE -Continued Jabbour said that some members of the Council are not aware of the litigation. He said that most of the Council did not know the content of the lawsuit or what issues are pending. Barrett said that because the applicants have suggested that they are unclear about the facts that the City seeks, he would support the Mayor's motion that the matter be tabled and extended for 60 days. He asked that the City staff prepare a letter to Mr. Hoyt which lays out precisely what is required of him if he wishes to be successful in his application for a conditional use permit. It doesn't mean that if he applies for the variances, that they will be granted. It does demonstrate what the City needs in order to evaluate the variances. He said he has a copy of the letter and he would be happy to give the letter to Mr. Hoyt or his attorneys at this time. He suggested that the matter be heard after better notice to the public and a reopened public hearing on January 19th for the purpose of having a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission with all the facts which the City believes are necessary. At that hearing the Planning Commission will make a recommendation and then the Council will make a final decision. Jabbour suggested that perhaps the City staff should change its way of writing reports. He said the report should refer to the land instead of saying that Mr. Hoyt filled in the lake. He said the applicant is probably right that no one can say that Mr. Hoyt physically took a shovel and started filling. He said the only thing the City has in its records is what was from the last application versus today. He said the City and the applicant can work together to obtain data between 1990 and 1999, such as aerial photographs, and if something has changed, then there is a problem with the land and the present owner is stuck with that problem. Until the City has all of the information, there is no way to make an educated decision regarding the land. Sheridan asked if the 60 -day rule is being started over based on an incomplete application or if this is an extension. If this is an extension, he would like to know what the reason is. Barrett said the City will send him a letter pursuant to the statute which extends for 60 days the time within which the City has to make a decision on this matter. He said the letter he will give Mr. Sheridan now will suggest the information and the form the City needs in order to be certain that the variances are properly noticed and applied for. Sheridan asked why they are getting this information now and why they didn't get it previously. Barrett said he does not know whether the applicant has willfully misunderstood the requests of staff or whether staff has misstated the requests. He said this letter will clarify the issues, the matter can go before the Planning Commission for proper consideration with the facts and it can go before the City Council for a final decision. That is the reason for the extension. • Sheridan said he does not understand what is written by the City staff. Page 11