PC 062216 - Laserfiche WebLink

end, it may not be possible. But if we were to proceed and sort of ordain in what the new use permit ought to look like, assuming we would adopt a different use permit, I believe then we would be setting —I'm not sure what it would be— either the minimum or the maximum for the results of the conversation between the new owner and the neighbors. And I just don't know that that's fair to their conversation or productive, nor get them to adopt them or not. Put it differently, I believe what we would be doing is imposing the unfortunate dynamic of a many year conversation to two new parties because we're trying to respond to some arbitrated settlement between various ideas and options and discussions that have been going on for years as opposed to a straight up new conversation and I don't know that the new owner ought to be either aided or sidled by, depending upon one's point of view, us taking action today after all these years. Commissioner O'Connor: I'd like to comment on that. So first of all, if there was a new buyer, that's going to be a new CUP. This one's not going to pertain to the new buyer. But given that, after nine years these two parties have not been able to agree and I think turning them away tonight to go away and work this out themselves is the wrong thing to do. The last time we did that it took us too many years to get back here. They're looking for an answer tonight. Chair Ritter: Weren't you here nine years ago? Commissioner O'Connor: So the first private residence dispute visit to a home I had was to the Millers about 10 years ago. But aside from that, right or wrong, I think it's our job to finally decide something that they can't decide between themselves. The escrow —I don't know if staff knows it's been in escrow, but it could have been in or out of escrow with Chabad for quite some time. I'm not sure it's ever going to close. It could close next week. It could close in five years. It could be a different buyer, so I don't think we should kick the can down the road. I really do think we should come to finality here and then if it does sell and there's a new user coming in, then it's a whole new ball game we do again. Commissioner Nagler: I appreciate that. Just to be clear, I am absolutely not suggesting that these parties try and go figure it out. I'm clearly not suggesting that. What I was suggesting is that discussion is about to occur between two new parties, one being sort of the Millers.... Commissioner O'Connor: But again, that could be years of agony down the road again if we don't resolve something here tonight. I think after all this time of finally getting it back here, we need to come to some resolution going forward, and I think what I heard from Nancy is, and I'm kind of on board with Nancy, I'd like to go back to what wasn't a problem and that's the original CUP. But I think that the original CUP as staff pointed out is problematic in that I guess it could be interpreted because the CUP doesn't say everything that the staff report said, so there are a lot of implications in the staff report that should have been guiding the CUP but they didn't itemize everything in the CUP according to what the concerns were in the staff report. So I think we do need to go back and maybe add some language to the current CUP that gives us the result that we had for the first 20 years and essentially my concern is that I don't think there should be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 30 of 56