My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001-04-03 P & Z Agenda
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
1994-2022
>
2001
>
2001-04-03 P & Z Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2009 2:38:16 PM
Creation date
7/17/2009 2:36:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
147
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Blake asked why they were not offered the same courtesy. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg explained that any kind of Variance goes before the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission noting that neighbors can protest, but the City does not rule on the <br />Variance request based on neighborhood opinion. The opinion is heard and considered, <br />and ifthere 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 />would 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 />reqnired 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 reqnired. <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 />bllilrling 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 infurmation 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 /> <br />Page 4 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.