Laserfiche WebLink
<br />March 14,2001 <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />Variance request based on neighborhood opinion. The opinion is heard and considered, <br />and if there is valid reason to grant a variance it is approved. He then stated if the Blakes <br />had taken their request one step further they would have gotten different answers. <br /> <br />Mr. Blake stated he spoke to the City Inspector and got the same answer, that a Variance <br />may be required. <br /> <br />Mrs. Blake noted she had read through Ordinance #4 and stated it seemed to her that <br />building off the building pad was an amendment to the plan, which is something that <br />required Councils approval. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft explained that going off the building pad is not an amendment or a <br />change, and that Council approval is not required. <br /> <br />Mrs. Blake then read the responsibilities of the Building Inspector noting she felt Council <br />could prohibit Mr. Buechler from building the house as he is. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft explained there is no violation existing that would warrant the <br />Building Inspector or Council taking action. City Attorney Hoeft further explained the <br />building pads are not significant with regard to the approved drainage plan. They are <br />there to improve marketability and, as such, they are shown on the plan but are not part of <br />the approved grading plan. <br /> <br />Mrs. Blake asked why she was told she would need a Variance. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft stated that in any real estate transaction there are obligations on <br />behalf of the seller and the buyer that require due diligence to investigate the situation if <br />there is a question as to what City Code allows them to do with the property. In this case <br />the Blakes relied on information from the building inspector as to what they could or <br />could not do. Assuming, for the sake of argument, the information from the building <br />inspector was incorrect that would not create any liability on the part of the City. Mr. <br />Hoeft went on to explain that the Legislature has determined that City employees do not <br />control the legal document that contains the City's Codes and, if there is a discrepancy <br />between what a resident is told and what exists in the City Code, the Code governs. It is <br />part of the due diligence process to determine if the advice given is in accordance with <br />City Code. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoeft further stated if the Blakes received wrong information from the Building <br />Inspector that that information does not bind the City legally. He explained the reason <br />the Legislature has upheld that immunity is because if it did not exist and employees <br />could be held responsible then it would be costly to cities. That cost is something the <br />Legislature did not want to be borne by taxpayers. Mr. Hoeft then explained that if the <br />Blakes were given wrong information, it was a mistake that was made, and that mistake <br />was corrected when Mr. Buechler brought the matter to the City's attention. <br /> <br />Mr. Blake clarified that he and his wife are not looking for restitution. He then stated he <br />relied on information received from City officials that if anyone else would be building <br />off the pads that they, as neighboring property owners, would be informed. He stated he <br />feels they were not treated decently. He also stated that they are the general public and <br /> <br />Page 4 of 15 <br />