BELFAST – You won’t find real estate agent Fran Riley licking her fingers over the city’s building moratorium.

Riley informed the City Council this week that the moratorium had cost one of her United Realty client’s an opportunity to sell his Route 3 property to a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise. Riley said she had negotiated a purchase and sale agreement on behalf of landowner Charles Springer only to have the deal pulled out from under them when the moratorium was enacted.

“The reason for the moratorium was to prevent fast food restaurants and my client [from selling] his property to Kentucky Fried Chicken,” Riley charged Tuesday. “He was told the proposed use would not be an allowed use as it was proposed to [city planner] Wayne Marshall.”

The council enacted a six-month moratorium in August in response to notification by Wal-Mart that it planned to build a Supercenter on Route 3. Part of the site Wal-Mart had optioned was located in a residential zone and the council decided it needed time to address that and other planning issues before contemplating any zone changes favorable to Wal-Mart.

The unsettled situation prompted Wal-Mart to drop its option on the property last month. Company officials have indicated that while Belfast remains a part of its expansion program, Wal-Mart will wait until the city completes its planning needs before moving forward on another parcel.

The “targeted moratorium” restricted the development of commercial buildings greater than 25,000 square feet. In addition, retail or restaurant uses that generate more than 100 vehicle trips per peak hour are covered by the moratorium.

Property owner Charles Springer said he was about to close the sale when the moratorium was approved. Once the buyer learned of the council’s action, he withdrew his offer and asked that his deposit be returned. Springer said the city tripled the assessed value of his vacant lot within weeks of enacting the moratorium.

The council had intended to have its big box planning and zoning revisions in place when the moratorium expired in January. It turned out that was an unrealistic goal and the council is now poised to extend the moratorium another six months.

The council will hold its first reading and public hearing on the proposed moratorium extension on Dec. 5. The decision to move on an extension was reached by a 3-2 vote. Jon Cheston, Tammy Lacher and Michael Lewis voted in favor of the extended moratorium, Walter Ash and Mark Riposta opposed the measure.

“Not everyone in the city is in favor of extending the moratorium,” Riposta said. “I’d like to end it tomorrow.”

Besides taking steps to extend the moratorium, the council also agreed to hold a referendum on the issue of allowing so-called “big box” stores in the city. The referendum will take place in June. Two seats on the council and proposed changes to the city charter will also be decided at that same election.

Riley was critical of the decision to extend the ban. She said the public was “assured in August there was ample time for the city planning office and code officer to deal with it.”

Riley said she understood city hall’s concern that its planning apparatus may be having difficulties reacting to recent growth and development in the city. That aside, however, Riley insisted that the moratorium had denied some property owners, including her client, an opportunity to sell their land.

“I want to make sure the council is taking into consideration property owners rights,” Riley said. “It may be a limited number of people, but they are still taxpayers.”

Riley added that in the case of Springer, he had owned the property for decades and planned to use it to support his retirement.

“He has had it slipped out from under him [because of the moratorium],” said Riley.