03/09/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e one or more years. The City Attorney's Office has been assisting the department with the negotiations toward a voluntary purchase. It appears that this cannot be expected for some time. As a result, Mr. Wood, a previous owner, his attor- ney, and the City Attorney have recommended that in order to initiate some progressive action to ultimately culminate the purchase of the property, the City initiate condemnation proceedings. The purchase price is not the issue. The project is consistent with the community goals established in the South Hills Study and adopted by the council. They are consistent with the State Land Use Goals established by LCDC, the applicable goals being: Goal 5, Open Spaces, to preserve and to protect scenic areas and to promote a healthy, visually attractive environment; Goal 4, the protection of forest lands; Goal 6, for air, water, and land resources; and Goal 8, the recreational needs goal. The housing goal is not impaired since there is an adequate inventory of buildable land for residential use in this area. Mr. Obie asked if this was the property that is the subject of a controversy between the property owners Coleman and Mr. Wood, relative to a septic tank field. Mr. Haniuk said that this was not the issue in litigation. They were aware of the controversy. They have addressed the issue and have informed Mr. Coleman that they are aware of the problem and do want to see the easement removed. Mr. Haniuk said Mr. Coleman had an implied easement on Mr. Wood's property for a septic tank field. Mr. Obie was concerned for the man who would lose his septic tank field to the City. Mr. Haniuk indicated that Mr. Coleman would not be evicted from the former site. He said that it was not the subject of litigation. The litigation was between Mr. Wood and Mr. Green over a land sales contract. Mr. Sercombe told Mr. Obie that Mr. Coleman would be paid by the City if he had an interest in the condemnation act or some other reasonable agreement with the City would be made. Mr. Gleason said that if there is a right, it will be determined by the court and the compensation will be paid for that right. Mr. Gleason told Mr. Obie that when the City goes into condemnation, if they have not adequately resolved the issue of the septic tank field, they will notify the councilors, bring the issue back, and hold a public hearing on the subject, as long as it did not jeopardize the court proceedings. Ms. Miller urged that the council allow the attorney flexibility for proceeding. Ms. Miller asked for clarification of the pending litigation about the land sales contract which is governing the current sale of land to the current owner. The previous owner, the underlying seller in the contract, has been cooperating with the City in this manner. Is the City dealing with an unwilling seller or with an unclear title? Mr. Haniuk gave more background. Mr. Wood, the previous owner, had sold the parcel to American-Nepal Education Foundation. They sold it to Joe Green. As a result of difficulties in developing the land as Mr. Green has intended, Mr. Green sued to rescind his contract. That was where the suit started. Then the City indicated an interest in buying the property from the American-Nepal MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 1981 Page 4