Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> � ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD NOVEP2BER 24, 1975 Page 7 <br /> � He noted that there is a need to protect the EISINGER LANDFILL <br /> wetlands and the marsh retention areas from (Continued) <br /> pollution and from development into that marsh- <br /> land, It is clear to him that there is a <br /> potential danger to the watershed by allowing <br /> the use of this property located in the marsh <br /> as a sanitary landfillo <br /> � <br /> The City Attorney noted that,assuming that <br /> I�ire Shieffer was correct,that this property was <br /> zoned in 1958 in such a manner as to allo�a a <br /> conditional use permit for a sanitary landfill <br /> and assuming that in 1968, or sometime thereabout, <br /> that the zoning ordinance was amended to preclude <br /> � this sort of use in the residential zone and <br /> that the property owner thereafter obtained a <br /> � conditional use to operate as a non-conforming <br /> � usee It is clear that the property owner lost <br /> any rights he had to operate as a non-conforming <br /> � use when he terminated operations in approximately <br /> 1970 or 1971, The zoning ordinance provides, <br /> � and always has provided,that at anytime the <br /> applicant terminates the operation of a non- <br /> conforming use for a period of six months or <br /> a year, that that applicant loses any rights to <br /> continue as a non-conforming use. rloreover, the <br /> attorney noted that even if he had not lost his <br /> rights to the nonconforming use, the definition <br /> of non-conforming use in the zoning code, and <br /> that definition is one that has been passed upon <br /> � by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, states <br /> that the operator of a business which is a non- <br /> � conforming use may not extend the operation beyond <br /> � its present limits after the time that the land <br /> use has become a non-conforming use, In this <br /> � case, the applicant is trying to extend his <br /> operation beyond that which was present at the <br /> � time of his voluntary cessation of business and <br /> at time that property became a non-conforming use. <br /> � Therefore, the City Council has two questions in <br /> this mattera The first question concerns <br /> whether or not there are grounds to grant a <br /> variance from Ordinance No, 125, the wetlands <br /> ordinance. The second question is whether or <br /> .� not the City Council wishes to amend the zoning <br /> code to allow for a commercial use of this sort <br /> � in a residential zone. Councilmember Welsh <br /> noted that based upon the staff reports and the <br /> � recommendation of the Planning Commission and <br /> his own knowledge concerning this matter, that <br /> he would move to deny the application by iTr, <br /> Eisinger insomuch as he had not demonstrated <br /> �that it would be in the public interest but in <br /> fact just the opposite if the variance were granted. <br /> • (Continued� <br />