CC_Minutes_2017_1106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,November 6, 2017 Page 6 Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, REJECTION of the Settlement Agree- ment (Attachment A) with Dorso Building Company, LLP and Interveners for a period of five years as presented. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she shared similar concerns to those of Councilmember Willmus, and in assuming another five years would resolve those issues, didn't agree that the agreement provided for that. While recognizing as- surances from the City Attorney, Councilmember Laliberte opined that this would continue to drag out and may prove beneficial to letting the litigation proceed at this point. While not saying she disagreed with Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember McGehee noted the city's loss of some significant lawsuits in the recent past; and therefore, would like those issues put before the council to understand potential costs for this loss in addition to understand those previous losses. Mayor Roe referenced the points made by City Manager Trudgeon and City At- torney Gaughan in the lawsuit that Dorso contends that the property can continue its existing non-conforming use; and noted that no one can predict how that may come out in the lawsuit. Mayor Roe agreed with the City Attorney's recommen- dation that the settlement agreement may be the way to get resolution at less cost to the city. Mayor Roe reiterated that it was entirely possible that at the end of another possible two years of litigation, the court ruling may be to grant a five year Interim Use (IU) as a possibility, with still more time involved in reaching the same conclusion this agreement provided. Councilmember McGehee opined that it seemed that to Dorso's position with the non-conforming use being permitted, the city did have a history of allowing non- confirming use to continue on the property and by not enforcing it sooner, had po- tentially strengthened Dorso's position in court. Before rejecting this settlement agreement, Councilmember McGehee stated that she'd need to hear more prece- dents for similar case law. Based on state statute standards, Mayor Roe noted that the time frame of one year of no longer continuing an existing legal, non-conforming use before losing that designation was the essence of the argument between the city and Dorso. Councilmember Etten stated that he didn't disagree with concerns expressed by the public and/or his colleagues; and agreed with Councilmember McGehee that previous City Council discussions in Closed Executive Session had sought for stronger language. However, Councilmember Etten stated that he leaned toward staff's and City Attorney Gaughan's recommendation for the settlement agree- ment being the surest way to move forward with this property. Councilmember Etten read some of the provisions included in the agreement (e.g. fencing and trailers moved in accordance with the Fire Marshal and architectural drawing as