05-28-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CRCMC ciTV mezti.'io -;z - \ 3 V * ^ t, . • ^ — . }Z ZCMIMG O • • • • • "':3Z7:i.\.i :.:mt:;."cz r'— a a ■• 3“2~2- ~ ■i — .\^Z -- . _ a ■= .. a---- a -.. = --a5= j = e t;'.-i :r-=er-.- -.:-ar .i i i j a r. “ for four vears- ^jo*r «. — — es~abiisnea, prooer-V by -J •• - 5 a - •• — a ic ,nac zLr<e. ** j 3 r. 9 a r.ara i5 tinar l s — — • — - *3 3 ieaflire fare r.as ceer. r r .T» o r. r 303310ass 0000—--*- 1940 SZoraiin-a Dr.vs, rsicsraced Mr. .Rovegr.o ’s .eauesi to hVvV :-aacreV -.aoled ao tnat Oe could express nxs coo=e?ns to Councrl. Netties saxc. "s you k-.cx Nr. Rovepto xs very o,u=h opposed to toe v:'/, T fln also oDoosec rr ir. - ...a...wa_.. oa...c =- - Council last' reviewed tnis issue. .1 cxsoontinua.-.oe ot t.ni^^^ usa^^ Whether ^a" ■^"Vtancoclhr.- Rovegno and I shara t.de opinion tnar tne Ciry ooes noc have the auchoritv to grant what is in essence a use Variance. i ta...<ec autnoriu/ uu -,r -"-c; ’ssu®. and I cecar.s convincscwith several Counci.ne.'twero an . = Su.., an i^-or-e-'s that t.here may be some misinterpretation memo means that tiie City has no c.noics ou. .o v-an- • ^ODe....an a continued use Variance because '3c..e. ouat-s. -- is my opinion that the bind the C.ty oi Orono. discontinuing tnis this property. Mr. Crear and I property, but re that the property had j^Qprssentatives are now sayi.ng __ _ an involuntary basis, and t.nat is supposed to ma.-ce a The issue of involuntary is one of firs Ir. ws of In ocher States ic not necessari-.y fact, tne case for the City There nas ncc caen any uae of cne oroperty for five years. was no use of t.his Toberman iisagreed, stating used for meecings. Those .nat the use was discontinued on difference. whether the discontinued use was voluntary or irnoression, wnicn means sucn an issue 13 very str have lived near tne >cac2d last year cr.ac esentatives ^tr Mr. To ir“^^hic^d^rr r^Vsci-Tii^hW Detaining to t.he fact t.hat Mr. Toberman has made significant ffn^nJial investxment in this property, and t.hat it is therefore inequitable not to allow him to use the property, is one wnere 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. nnother issue raise , that of inv rse condemnation, wnich would require the City to pay Mr. Toberman because it is taking away part of tne use property. In order for Mr. Toberman to succeed with such a claL. he would have to show chat t.here is no reasonable use left. That is not t.he case, fh^re is a reasonaoie use left for this property. - 4 -