Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />CC Meeting Minutes <br />Page Two <br />June 8, 1988 <br /> <br />-The split could be tied to the future owner, advising him <br />that the setbacks are his responsibility as the tower <br />is now grandfathered in. <br /> <br />Mayor L'Allier: <br />-Why restrict future property owners. Why not increase lot <br />size now to comply with City ordinance to possibly save <br />the liability of the City in the future. <br />-It may be a disadvantage to Cellular I, but it would save a <br />lot of future problems if the lot is increased now. <br />-Have a responsibility to both current and future land <br />owners. If the City does it right this time it may <br />avoid future legal problems. <br />-If the City continues to grant variances, then ordinances <br />may not be correct and should be changed. <br /> <br />Council member Burgstahler: <br />-Reasoning for granting a variance to Ordinance #8 can be <br />found. <br />-Ordinance #4 is pretty clear regarding towers, no unusual <br />factors can be found to grant this variance. <br /> <br />Council member Fritchie: <br />-Would like this situation handled correctly. <br />-Ordinances are there for a reason. <br />-Major concern is future liability of the City. <br />-No problem with variance to Ordinance #8 if the size of the <br />parcel is increased. <br /> <br />Council member Wilharber: <br />-If lot size were increased, would the original special use <br />permit remain contractual requiring Cellular I to <br />continue annual contributions? <br />-Questioned who the City is most responsible to, the current <br />or future owner. <br />-There is only one tower in Centerville, thus this is a one <br />of a kind instance. <br /> <br />Motion by Wilharber, to grant a variance to Ordinance #8, Article <br />2, Section 21.05 and to Ordinance #4, Sections 33.01 and 33.03, <br />and TABLE B, MINIMUM LOT SIZE, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, to <br />allow the 170' X 170' base site on which the tower currently sits <br />to be split into a separate parcel, motion died for lack of a <br />second. <br /> <br />Clerk noted: <br />-If the lot size were increased to the dimensions <br />recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and <br />the land were to be used for farming, couldn't Cellular <br />I lease the additional land around the tower to the <br />