Laserfiche WebLink
Void is a simple legal term. It merely means that it no longer has <br /> any legal force . In that situation the use that was existing prior <br /> to the issuance of the special use is now what it would become is the <br /> lay of the land . I think when we ' re acting on an issue such as this <br /> it 's important for you people to consider the precedent you may set <br /> or the precident you have already set in dealing with an issue such <br /> as this . Now on November 22, 1982 , this body dealt with 5 inactive <br /> permits and summarily revoked all of those . You also worked on 2 <br /> other special use permits on that particular date . One of them was <br /> to E L Rehbein and Sons and that was for an addition of a floor for <br /> an office . That was issued at least 12 months prior to your action . <br /> No construction was started . E L Rehbein representative came up here <br /> and told me it was due to economic problems . At that time council <br /> members Maier and Benson asked the city attorney Hawkins what options <br /> would that present the council with . Mr . Hawkins as quoted in the <br /> minutes , they could either be revoked or extended . I agree with that . <br /> The minutes don ' t reflect on what basis it was revoked ; however I • <br /> assume it would have to be section 6 . 21 because there ' s no other <br /> ordinance provision dealing with it . I would like to point out that <br /> it was revoked unanimously. E L Rehbein did not object to that <br /> revocation of that particular permit . I think the only inference , <br /> the only inference , you can take from that is that they felt the <br /> council correctly applied their zoning ordinance to that particular <br /> issue . Second permit was dealt with November 22 , 1982 , in regard to <br /> an A . T . Gearman storage building . No actual building or construction <br /> was done within 1 year of the issuance of the permit . Plans , however , <br /> were submitted within that year period which will be verified by your <br /> building inspector . Despite those plans , despite the fact there was <br /> no building this council unanimously revoked Mr . Gearman ' s permit . <br /> I think if you go over the years past it has been the custom and <br /> practice of this particular council to revoke these permits when <br /> there has been no objective groundbreaking . You as a municipal body <br /> have a duty to see that all ordinances are uniformly applied to all , <br /> members of your community . If you don ' t apply these ordinances on <br /> a uniform basis you ' re subjecting yourselves to law suits . It ' s my <br /> information from Mr, Gearman , I don ' t know if he ' s going to be here <br /> -5- <br />