Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />7 <br />N <br />.,regard to the ownership of the property in question which Mr. Flynn refuted as <br />being incorrect. <br />Councilman Anderson asked for an opinion from the City Attorney as to the <br />legality of instructing Building Inspector to refuse building permit until <br />ordinance has been considered. City Attorney McCarthy said he believed it was <br />within the providence of the Council to do so. <br />Councilman Anderson stated that he believed that the request to remove .the <br />property was a fair request and.that he would vote for ordinance If multiple <br />buildings were` "not allowed. <br />10-ouncilman McNulty said he believed Mr. Flynn's proposition could be made.to <br />stick as'a gentlemants agreement-. -Said there,was-nothing to stop him from <br />going out.and building a multiple building now.. <br />Mayor Granger.asked what authority Council would have to refuse.building ,permit <br />-if Mr.. Flynn sold the property in question. City Attorney McCarthy said Council <br />could instruct Building Inspector not to give anyone a permit to construct a <br />multiple building until the Planning Commission has reported to the.0ouncil, <br />. their.recommendation-on zoning .ordinance.. <br />„. 'Attorney Nuckolls said he did not.belie ve the Council should go into the °ifs <br />and ands" of legal ramifications when the matter could be taken care of by <br />postponing action until next meeting of the Council. <br />Councilman McNulty believed that was a fair statement and that in theend it <br />would amount to the same thing. <br />Councilman Hilton stated that the 'Council had a letter from the Planning <br />Commission requesting the Council to postpone action in the matter. - <br />Mr. Flynn stated that he did not believe that.the Planning Commission would be <br />able to have a definite answer by the next meeting of the Council. He asked <br />again to have property removed from fire zone, or request denied,at this <br />meeting. <br />Councilman Armstrong asked Mr. Flynn what advantage it would be to ,him to, have <br />this request granted at this meeting if Council passed. resolution preventing <br />multiple buildings from being constructed_ until action had been taken on amend— <br />ment to zoning ordinance. . <br />Mr. Flynn answered Councilman Armstrong's question by stating that there is no <br />ple,n for any building contemplated at the present time.. He wants to sell the <br />property in order to settle an estate and it takes'from•.35 to 40 days to take <br />property out of an estate. If the matter is continued over from meeting to <br />meeting there will beno way of his selling the property. <br />Co+mcilman McNulty asked the. City Attorney if it weretrue that it would take <br />35 or 46 days to take property out of the estate, to which City Attorney McCartt <br />answered that it is necessary to publish a notice.of sale for 20 days and -then <br />accept an offer which has to.be reported to the Court and posted for 10.days. I <br />his opinion; it. would take. about 35. or 140 days to remove the. property from an <br />estate. <br />Mayor Granger asked Mr. McCarthy, as a member of the Planning Commission,, for hl <br />opinion,as to how .long the matter of the changein the zoning ordinance. would. <br />take before the Planning Commission. Mr.' McCarthy said it would probably take <br />more than one meeting as the members were divided on the matter. He believed it <br />