1.
Violations.
[Ord. No. 2579,
Repealed and Replaced, 3-20-2012]
a.
Any development which occurs contrary to the provisions of this Code or contrary to any permit or approval issued or granted hereunder is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance, and may be abated pursuant to LOC §§ 34.08.400 to 34.08.490.
b.
It shall be a violation of this Code for a property owner or homeowners
association to amend or rescind or fail to comply with any covenant,
condition or restriction required by the City pursuant to a development
approval without approval of the City.
2.
Evidence
of Violation.
[Ord. No. 2579,
Repealed and Replaced, 3-20-2012]
Proof of a violation of this Code or permit, or approval issued
or granted hereunder shall be deemed prima facie evidence that such
violation is that of the owner of the property upon which the unlawful
use, activity, condition, building, structure or other development
exists. Prosecution, or lack thereof, of the owner of the property,
the occupant, or other person in possession or control of property
shall not be deemed to relieve any other responsible person.
1.
Duties
of City Manager.
[Ord. No. 2579,
Repealed and Replaced, 3-20-2012; Ord. No. 2612-A, Amended, 5-21-2013]
2.
Abatement.
[Ord. No. 2579,
Repealed and Replaced, 3-20-2012]
Upon request of the City Manager, the City Attorney may institute
an appropriate action in any court to enjoin the maintenance of any
use, occupation, building or structure which is in violation of any
provision of this Code.
3.
Revocation
of Permit.
[Ord. No. 2579,
Repealed and Replaced, 3-20-2012; Ord. No. 2643, Amended, 11-4-2014]
Upon referral by the City Manager, the Development Review Commission may hold a hearing pursuant to LOC §§ 50.07.003.3.c, 50.07.003.4, and 50.07.003.15.b to consider revocation of an approved permit and/or revocation of a certificate of occupancy. The DRC may revoke any permit approval or certificate of occupancy based upon one or more of the following findings:
a.
The applicant or the applicant’s representatives either intentionally
or unintentionally committed a material misrepresentation of fact
in the application or the evidence submitted in support of the application.
For the purposes of this section, "material misrepresentation of fact"
means a misstatement of factual information that:
i.
Was submitted by the applicant in support of the application;
ii.
Could have been corrected by the applicant at the time of application;
and
iii.
Formed the sole basis for approval of the application pursuant to
an applicable approval criterion.
|
A "material misrepresentation of fact" does not include misstatements
of fact made by City staff or caused by failure by another party to
appear or adequately testify.
|
b.
The applicant or successor in interest failed to complete the work
within the time or in the manner approved without obtaining an extension
of time or modification of the permit from the granting authority.
c.
The applicant or successor in interest failed to maintain or use
the property in accordance with the approved permit or conditions
of approval.
4.
Injunctive
Relief – Historic Preservation.
[Ord. No. 2579,
Repealed and Replaced, 3-20-2012]
Upon request of the City Manager, the City Attorney may institute
an appropriate action in any court to enjoin the demolition, alteration
or moving of any historic resources, or noncontributing resource or
construction on or to any landmark or within any historic district
which is in violation of any provision of this section.
5.
Failure
to Fulfill Obligation, Lien Created.
[Ord. No. 2579,
Repealed and Replaced, 3-20-2012]
a.
If the City Manager determines that an applicant has failed to fulfill the obligations referred to in LOC § 50.07.003.9, Improvements and Security, written notice shall be given detailing the failure and stating the City’s intention to use the security given to complete the obligation. If the City completes the obligation and the security required by LOC § 50.07.003.9, Improvements and Security, is not sufficient to compensate the City for costs incurred, the excess amount due to the City, plus a 10% administrative charge, is a lien in favor of the City and upon the real property subject to the obligation.
b.
The lien attaches upon entry in the City lien docket and the giving
of notice of the claim for the amount due for the completion of the
obligation. The notice shall demand the amount due, allege the insufficiency
of the bond or other security to compensate the City fully for the
cost of the fulfillment of the obligation, and allege the applicant’s
failure to complete the required obligation.
c.
The lien may be foreclosed in the manner prescribed by ORS Chapter
223 for foreclosing liens on real property.
6.
Complaint
Procedures and Corrective Action – Fences.
[Repealed by Ord. No. 2853, 11-3-2020]
1.
Civil
Violation, Separate Violations.
[Ord. No. 2579,
Repealed and Replaced, 3-20-2012]
2.
Cumulative
Remedies.
[Ord. No. 2579,
Repealed and Replaced, 3-20-2012]
The rights, remedies and penalties provided in this Code are cumulative, are not mutually exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights, remedies and penalties available to the City under any other provision of law. A person holding a City business license who violates the provisions of this Code is also subject to a proceeding to consider revocation of the license pursuant to LOC § 20.02.085.
3.
Historic
Preservation.
[Ord. No. 2579,
Repealed and Replaced, 3-20-2012; Ord. No. 2841, Amended, 9-1-2020]
a.
A violation of any provision of LOC § 50.06.009, except the demolition provisions of LOC §§ 50.07.004.4.a.iii and 50.06.009.6.b, is a civil violation and shall be enforced pursuant to the provisions of LOC §§ 34.04.101 to 34.04.145. Each day that the violation exists constitutes a separate violation. The demolition of a landmark in violation of LOC §§ 50.07.004.4.a.iii or 50.06.009.6.b is a misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in LOC § 34.02.081, Criminal Penalties.
b.
For neglect of landmark:
i.
It shall be a civil violation for an owner to not remedy the condition(s)
constituting neglect of landmark within the date specified in the
City Manager’s notice and order.
ii.
The City Manager may initiate civil violation proceedings pursuant to LOC Article 34.04 against the owner of the landmark building.
iv.
As a cumulative remedy in addition to civil violation, upon request
of the City Manager, the City Attorney may institute an appropriate
action in any court to enjoin the neglect of landmark which is in
violation of any provision of this section.
4.
Floodplain
Management.
[Ord. No. 2847,
Added, 1-4-2022]
No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located,
extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms
of this ordinance[1] and other applicable regulations. Violations of the provisions of this ordinance by failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with conditions) shall constitute a civil violation and shall be enforced pursuant to the provisions of LOC §§ 34.04.101 to 34.04.145. Each day that the violation exists shall constitute a separate violation. The maximum fine amount per civil violation shall be as provided in LOC § 13.02.020. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the City Manager from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.
