03-25-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

h fPi ^ ' ■■■:r • ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1991 (14)ZONING FILE #1497-TOBERMAN CONTINUED that a building, heavily advertised as being for sale, is not tne basis for a new business by the current owner. After reviewing the material on this matter, it seemed to me that if the Conditional Use Permit had expired, the issue of renewal was a moot question.” Barrett stated that his first opinion concurred with the comments raised by Butler, but that the case law introduced by Gilbert put new light on this issue. He said, "In my opinion, the State Courts would consider that case law. The points raised by Councilmember Butler may in fact support a position that abandonment was voluntary. The facts that Mr. Gilbert discussed with me indicate it was involuntary because of the low level of the lake." Butler stated that she would be receptive to such rationale if in fact the business had ever started. She said, "You cannot attract business with an empty building." Goetten statad that the City has trieo to work with Mr. Toberman on this matter. She said, "It seems that all of our efforts were for nothing because of the pending legal issue. If we are in fact in a position where w-a have no choice but to approve the renewal, then I thinx Council should consider attaching specific conditions to our approval. If the business fails to meet those conditions within a certain period of time, then I think we would have sufficient grounds for disallowing any additional requests to renew the Conditional Use Permit." Callahan stated that the reason for the 1987 Conditional Use Permit was because Mr. Toberman intended to rent the building to someone else. He said, "Mr. Toberman did not intend to establish a business on that premises himself. The person that was going to rent the building had a business connection with Mr. Toberman. There has not been any consideration on the part of Mr. Toberman to sell boats from that location. The person who wcnted to rent the property for that reason, abandontjd the idea, and consequently let go of the property. Mr. Toberman m.ade the improvements to the property based on the representations of tne individual wishing to rent it. At first Mr. Gilbert informed us that the property had not been abandoned, because meetings were periodically held there. In my opinion, the use was voluntarily abandoned. The impetus for renewing the Conditional Use Permit was that Mr. Toberman had a buyer, Morrie Wagner, for the property across the street and wished to tie 1960 Shoreline Drive in with that business. I do not btalieve that 1 960 Shoreline Drive will support commercial use, and should not be joined with the marina across the street. In my opinion, the permit should be denied." - 4 -