05-13-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1991 (13)ZONING FILE #1497-TOBERMAN CONTINUED p.m TQijfanoeau statsd that hs die not think it wise Jt the Ciu/ to allow a business use of this property after it has sat vacant for four years. that a deadline date has beenGoetten advised Mr. Tourangeau established, and if there is no business operating from this property by that time, that is it. Alan Nettles, 1940 Shoreline Drive, reiterated Mr. Rovegno|s request to have this matter tabled so that he could express his concerns to Council. Nettles said, "As you know, Mr. Rovegno is very much ooposed to the City granting a Conditional Use Permit. I am also opposed to it. I maintain the same position I had when Council last reviewed this issue. A discontinuance of this use, voluntary, or involuntary is inmaterial. The City of Orono's Ordinance is crystal clear from a legal standpoint. M.r. Rovegno and I share the opinion that the City does not have the authority to grant what is in essence a use Variance. I talked with several CounciIroembers on this issue, and I became convinced that there may be some misinterpretation that the City Attorney's memo means that the City has no choice but to grant Mr. Toberman a continued use Variance because laws exist in other States. It is ray opinion that the lav/s of other States do not necessarily bind the City of Orono. In fact, the case for the City discontinuing this is very strong. There has not been any use of this property. I have lived near the property for five years. Mr. Crear and I stated last year that there was no use of this property, but representatives for Mr. Toberman disagreed, stating that the property had been used for meetings. Those t^ptesentatives are now saying that the use was discontinued on an involuntary basis, and that is supposed to make a difference. The issue of whether the discontinued use was voluntary or involuntary is one of first impression, which means such an issue has not been decided before in Minnesota. The City Attorney's memo states that there is authority in other jurisdictions which requires a showing that the property owner voluntarily abandoned it. That does not necessarily bind the City of Orono. The issue pertaining to the fact that Mr. Toberman has made significant financial investment in this property, and that it is therefore Unequitable not to allow him to use the property, is one where Mr. Toberman would have to prove that the City somehow acted improperly against him. The City has a strong position and has the authority to deny this request. Another issue raised, is that of inverse condemnation, which would require the City to pay Mr. Toberman because it is taking away part of the use of his pjfQpnrty• In order for M.r. Toberman to succeed with such a claim, he would have to show that there is no reasonable use left. That is not the case, there is a reasonable use left for this property. - 4 -