07/23/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I to this point. There are cases that talk about what happens when the City tries to revoke a building permit or tries to apply a law to an existing structure. Then the question becomes one of vested rights. Mr. Long said e that was not what was happening here. The City is trying not to apply it, because that's been the City's practice. Mr. Long said he wanted to alert the Council to the fact that it may be deciding which lawsuit it wants to litigate. Mr. Long said if he heard Mr. Hammons correctly, he is going to contend on behalf of his clients, that they have some vested rights. Whether the City could prevail in that litigation is jUdgmental. What was clear to Mr. Long was that, upon being asked by this particular land owner, if the Council intended to apply this new law to his in-progress permit, the City administration said no. Not only did he ask at public meetings, Mr. Long was told, he sent at least one letter raising the question about the Building Code, because that would be the greatest expense. He was assured that the version of the Building Code that was in effect at the time he applied was what was going to be applied to his application. In summary, Mr. Long said that this was the policy. He believed the Council had choices. There was no question in his mind about what had occurred between the City and the applicant, if that was of concern to the Council. He said the suggestion that the general policy was cumbersome was one with which he just plain disagreed. The general policy ordinance before the Council is the policy which the City has followed for many years. The suggestion that the ordinance that would clear up the situation is unclear because it does not answer the question whether there are valid building permits, is not one Mr. Long agrees with. He believes it is not - vague in any respect. It says that the ordinance does not apply to building permits determined by the Superintendent of Building Inspection to be valid. Councilor Delay said he was assessing Mr. Long's advice to be that the two issues are: 1) Is the Council going to adopt an ordinance for a general policy; and 2) Is it going to adopt a second ordinance which is a legis- lative matter to clear up any ambiguity about the other Council bill.1I Mr. Long said that was his view. Councilor Lieuallen asked Ms. Rich if any members of the Historic Review Board had looked at the plans for the proposed development, and whether they would fit the standards the Board would apply. Ms. Rich said no one had, as far as she knew. Mr. Lieuallen asked Mr. Long whether, in the case the Council would take an action to revoke the permits, was Mr. Long assuming the architects would sue the City for any loss? Mr. Long replied that what he was assuming was that, if the permits were revoked, that action would be challenged because of what occurred before this dispute arose. The manner in which it would be challenged would be speculation on his part. e ~g 7/23/79--8