Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
r <br />ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1991 <br />($4)ZONING FILE #1497- TOBERMAN CONTINUED <br />then Council would be a position to deny the continued use of <br />this property." <br />Mayor Peterson suggested that it may be appropriate to allow <br />the use to continue for an additional six months. She said, "My <br />reasoning behind the six months is that it would allow us to see <br />whether something will happen during the boating season. If the <br />property is going to be used, I should think something would <br />occur within the next six months." <br />Goetten stated that she did not approve of granting the <br />Conditional Use Permit for a one year period of time. <br />Jabbour expressed concerns about Mr. Toberman being in a <br />position where he is forced to operate a skeleton business, just <br />for the sake of meeting the conditions of the Conditional Use <br />Permit. He said, "I do not think the City's interest would be <br />well served by a business that is there one day, gone the next. <br />Mr. Toberman is obviously trying to do something with the <br />property. I think the City should work with him to make sure <br />that the best interest of the City is served. I would like to <br />know what circumstances approved in the 1987 Conditional Use <br />Permit changed so that Council denied renewal of the Permit in <br />1990. Mr. Toberman made improvements to the property, as he was <br />required to do under the conditions of the 1987 Conditional Use <br />Permit." <br />Barrett replied, "The technical question is whether the City <br />is required to grant yet another renewal of the Conditional Use <br />Permit, once the one year time period had expired. Mr. Gilbert <br />responded to Council's position in the Fall, of 1990, with some <br />case law unfamiliar to me, because it was derived from another <br />state. That case law examines the issue of voluntary versus <br />involuntary abandonment of the use. In view of the investment <br />made by Mr. Toberman, I felt that to be persuasive case law. I <br />would recommend that should Council agree to grant an additional <br />period of time, that it be established with the applicant's <br />understanding." <br />Butler asked if the request before Council this evening <br />includes the servicing of boats, as well as the other uses <br />granted in the 1387 Conditional Use Permit. <br />Barrett replied, "The issue before Council is whether the <br />1987 Conditional Use Permit should be a'-lowed to remain in <br />place." <br />Butler said, "Historically, the terms of a Conditional Use <br />Permit state that there is a one -year time period, and if the use <br />_Ls not exercised within that period, it is lost. It seems to me <br />- 3 - <br />