Laserfiche WebLink
ORCMC CITY CCUNCIL •■•IZTIMG HZ <br />{i:;icNi:iG riLZ j_4i?.-.cz^.-.a^.. <br />!?;"*.;u.:.Y..--':i" ='r.;^A /;•'«!: <br />• - — •• — *• ___, ^ _ ----------; ^---- ^ -- --- -r.ir..-: -..a- .. - ------- ---------------- - ------- <br />bVaVdeciaion 13 -.0 -:a-_ -..-.a-- ?r=cer-.y _caa.^;j:a^ <br />acninc. It is che only ?---::,.^=® ::'f-;y ^ <br />I.avarra tr.a_ - - ••-=- - - - -- - - -a-c -a <br />opportuni-/ -- -- - - <br />rssidemiiai. ” <br />It was moved by Callanan. seconded by Mayor Peterson, to <br />table this matter. Motion, Ayes-2. Goetten, ..aocour, an.- 3uu-e., <br />Nay. Motion failed. <br />Callahan stated that, in his opinitn. tne com-eroial -se of <br />^his oropertv was discontinued, and tnerafore, it snou-c rever <br />bac? fo Rasiden.ial zoair.g. Callahan i=ub-.ed -.haz Cauncz vouza <br />be able to revoke the Conci-.zor.al Usa ^ . h <br />there is no ooeration on the premises. .-e saic, ^ uninic we w. <br />that the Waiver of kichta, no matter how we-- rr.tenceo by <br />Mi TobermL, wril be t-.eller.ted by any future owner or t.-.e <br />orooerty." <br />Jabbour asked Barrett if t.ne City would <br />if the Cith Touncil voted to deny t-e Concitiona. Lse ?—mi-. <br />"It 13 mv opinion mat tne applicant nas a <br />interest i.n tn:s ousiness and permit _nBarrett replied, <br />fnvrstment-;-The rasue of aoandonment, rs oared on <br />the interpretation of the Ordinance and whether or not m can <br />reasonably acolied to this particular circumstance so to -a^.. <br />Iw.ir the property right to run t.he business. .My ccnc.usion is <br />that if the Council were to find t.hat the use was voluntarily <br />abandoned, then Mr. Toberman would have abandonee his prope«u/ <br />riaht. If you find that it was not voluntarily aoanconec^, J-^nicn <br />was the pr'emise of th» resolution, it seems <br />reasonable i.nterpretation of t.ha . Orcinance requires ..lau <br />permit that to remain in effect." <br />Jabbour stated that, at their last meeting, Council naa <br />conceptually aporoved the continued use or this property._ de <br />questLned Whether the City's legal position would be ^eoparaized <br />if Council now voted to deny the use. <br />Barr-af replied, "No. Council gave conceptual approval at <br />their last meeting. If new facts have bean introduced since t.hat <br />time or if fac?s presented at the Public Hearing have^ oeen <br />reconsidered, that now demonstrate t.he need <br />result. Council may do that without premdicing the City. <br />Jabbour asked Barrett to clarify how binding Mr. Toberman's <br />- 5 -