Laserfiche WebLink
r! <br />0 <br />i¥ <br />\s <br />Ih-i: <br />;*i ^y ■' ^ - ^ ► <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1991 <br />13)ZONING FILE #1497-TOBERMAN CONTINUED <br />I think the Council ought to consider whether it wants to <br />splice in law from another ]urisdiction 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 V/indward Marine and <br />Navarre that is not Residential. The City wi <br />opportunity to revert the zoning of this <br />residential.” <br />11 not have another <br />roperty back to <br />It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayer Peterson, 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 if the City would face any legal risk <br />if the City 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 t.he 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 bean introduced since that <br />time, or if facts presented at the Public Hearing have been <br />reconsidered, that now demonstrate t.he 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 -