Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1991 <br />( #3)ZONING FILE #1497 - TOBERMAN CONTINUED <br />I think the Council ought to consider whether it wants to <br />splice in law from another jurisdiction into the City's crystal <br />clear Ordinance to benefit an owner that simply wants to sell <br />this property. I do not think that is a good decision. I think <br />the best decision is to get that property back to Residential <br />zoning. It is the only property between Windward Marine and <br />Navarre that is not Residential. The City will not have another <br />opportunity to revert the zoning of this property back to <br />residential." <br />It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Paterson, to <br />table this matter. Motion, Ayes -2. Goetten, Jabbour, and Butler, <br />Nay. Motion failed. <br />Callahan stated that, in his opinion, the commercial use of <br />this property was discontinued, and therefore, it should revert <br />back to Residential zoning. Callahan doubted that Council would <br />be able to revoke the Conditional Use Permit one year from now if <br />there is no operation on the premises. He said, "I think we will <br />find that the Waiver of Rights, no matter how well intended by <br />Mr. Toberman, will be challenged by any future owner of the <br />property." <br />Jabbour asked Barrett i`f the City would face any legal risk <br />if the Citv Council voted to deny the Conditional Use Permit. <br />Barrett replied, "It is my opinion that the applicant has a <br />demonstrated property interest in this business and permit in <br />light of his investment. The issue of abandonment,, is based on <br />the interpretation of the Ordinance and whether or not it can be <br />reasonably applied to this particular circumstance so to take <br />away the property right to run the business. My.conclusion is <br />that if the Council were to find that the use was voluntarily <br />abandoned, then Mr. Toberman would have abandoned his property:. <br />right. If you find that it was not voluntarily abandoned, which <br />was the premise of the resolution, it seems. to ,me that the <br />reasonable interpretation of that Ordinance requires that you <br />permit that to remain in effect." <br />Jabbour stated that, at their last meeting, Council had <br />conceptually approved the continued' use of this property. He <br />questioned whether the City's legal position would be jeopardized <br />if Council now voted to deny the use. <br />Barrett replied, "No. Council gave conceptual approval at <br />their last meeting.. If new facts have been introduced since that <br />time, or if facts presented at the Public Hearing have been <br />reconsidered, that now demonstrate the need for a different <br />result, Council may do that without prejudicing the City." <br />Jabbour asked Barrett to clarify how binding Mr. Toberman's <br />- 5 - <br />