Laserfiche WebLink
Administrator warned the School District, at that time, that the IUP <br />would expire at the end of the year and the CUP would govern. (Ex. <br />C) The City Administrator provided a further warning in July 2019. <br />(Ex. 20.) Even if the IUP had been in place to allow their use, that <br />permission would have expired by December 2, 2019. <br />d. The invalidity of the IUP after rezoning does not invalidate <br />Condition No. 2 the CUP. <br />e. Moreover, there is no dispute that from December 2, 2019, <br />there is no exception for construction or use of the Property without <br />compliance with the City Engineer Memorandum. <br />Compliance with Engineering Memorandum <br />f. The City Engineer has provided a Memorandum, dated March <br />19, 2020 (Ex. 15), that addresses the School District's compliance <br />with his previous Memorandum (Ex. 8.) <br />g. Based upon the foregoing, the Council finds that the School <br />District is using the Property before the following improvements <br />were completed: <br />-Hudson Boulevard Improvements (Ex. 8, p. 2, Ex. 15) <br />-including Traffic Impact Study (Ex. 8, p. 2; Ex. 15) <br />-Municipal Sanitary Sewer (Ex. 8, p. 2; Ex. 15) <br />-Municipal Water Supply (Ex. 8, p. 2; Ex. 15) <br />-Storm water management facilities (Ex. 8, p. 1; Ex. 15) <br />h. The School District does not dispute that the improvements <br />have been not been completed but blames both the Developer for not <br />completing the improvements and the City for requiring them. <br />i. The City does not dispute that items complained of are the <br />responsibility of the Developer. The CUP does not require that the <br />School District complete them. It simply requires, like any other <br />development or redevelopment, that the redevelopment be complete <br />before final occupancy. Contrary to the suggestion of the School <br />District, that is not an unusual practice. <br />j. The City further finds that the School District created the <br />conflict with the CUP. There would be no violation of Condition No. <br />2 absent the School District's determination to move onto and utilize <br />the Property despite the prohibition in the CUP. The School District <br />- - - - -- is responsible- for this -violation -not the Cityorthe-Developer. - -- <br />B. Condition # 3. Condition No. 3 provides that the School District <br />must obtain all other necessary City, State, and other governing body <br />14 <br />