My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 5459
>
Resolutions
>
Resolution 5459
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/31/2017 11:20:05 AM
Creation date
1/31/2017 11:19:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolutions
Resolution Number
5459
Date
3/31/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
that he does not own. (exhibit 34) However, the Appellant at the original <br /> hearing indicated that he had cleared the adjacent property. <br /> 5. The Appellant submitted that he has been unable to comply with the <br /> conditions of the Order because of financial difficulties and that it is the <br /> wrong time of year to remove blackberries from the slope. According to <br /> the Appellant, based on newspaper articles and television shows, the <br /> blackberries will return if they are removed during the spring. (John <br /> Arendt testimony, Elizabeth Arendt testimony) <br /> 6. The City submitted that the blackberries may be removed during the <br /> spring of the year with the use of a chemical product called Roundup. The <br /> City submitted that with the proper use of Roundup there will be no <br /> damage to the slope or the sensitive area to Bigelow Creek. The <br /> blackberries would be permanently removed. (Greenhagen testimony) <br /> 7. The City submitted that with the continued exposure of the slope, <br /> additional erosion will occur, and the integrity of the slope would be <br /> threatened. There would also be a potential degradation to the Bigelow <br /> Creek. (Greenhagen testimony) <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> 1. No testimony was presented by the Appellant presenting a compelling <br /> reason why the planting plan had not been submitted or why one has not <br /> been implemented. The Appellant did not give a compelling reason why <br /> he waited until the last day to submit the planting plan. <br /> 2. The key issue before the Hearing Examiner is the preservation and <br /> restoration of the sensitive area of the steep slopes and Bigelow Creek. <br /> The Appellant provided no contradictory evidence that delay in <br /> implementing the restoration of the slope will result in additional damage <br /> to the area. <br /> DECISION <br /> Based on the preceding findings of facts and conclusions, it is the decision of the <br /> Hearing Examiner that the January 28, 2000 Order remains as stated with the <br /> exception that Condition #7 shall be amended to read as follows: <br /> 7. All cleanup and abatement of the violations must immediately occur. The <br /> Appellants shall submit a detailed planting plan no later than June 1, 2000_ <br /> The City will then approve or disapprove the planing plan. Implementation <br /> of a planting plan shall occur no later than June 24, 2000. Failure to follow <br /> this schedule will result in the City performing the work and using the legal <br /> process to protect its interest. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.