BOOK 19_1942-09-08 to 1945-05-07

Browse Search

would take considerable time `to amend the ordinance but they might be able to r reach a conclusion to make a recommendation as to what they intended to do by Y ' F the next meeting of the Council. Mayor Granger stated that he wanted to protect both sides and would like'to vote both ways. City Attorney McCarthy said both sides could be protected by instructing the Building Inspector to refuse applications to construct multiple buildings. Councilman Armstrong asked if that procedure had ever been followed before to which City Attorn ey McCarthy replied that it had been. Councilman Armstrong stated that he had been opposed to removing property from the fire zone since the beginning but, on'City Attorney McCarthyl's assurance that the Council can prevent' multiple buildings from being erected until the Planning Commission presents ordinance, he would not vote against the request. Councilman Hilton stated he was•of the same opinion. Councilman Armstrong stated he would like a motion passed to cover any building permits in respect to these properties. Attorney Nuckolls disagreed with City Attorney McCarthy as to the legality of such a motion. He stated that the zoning ordinance permits multiple dwellings in second residential zones and did not believe that a motion passed preventing multiple buildings to be built on property in question would legally prevent it being done. Councilman Armstrong asked the City Attorney if the question before the Council was not the adoption of the ordinance and its adoption was contiguous upon noth- ing, to•which Mr. McCarthy answered that it was not. Councilman Hilton stated'he would note against the ordinance as he had not been convinced that the Council would not be accused of discrimination. Mayor Granger said he was not satisfied and that he had not been convinced that multiple buildings could not be built. Councilman Armstrong asked if ordinance were voted down whether it would be necessary to readvertise before a similar or new ordinance could be adopted. City Attorney McCarthy replied that it would not be necessary as a member of the Council who voted with the majority could change his vote and ask for a reconsideration. Upon call of roll, ordinance removing property from fire zone was voted down on the following vote: Those voting in favor of passage of ordinance: Councilmen Britschgi and Fletcher. Thosevoting against passage of ordinance: Councilmen Anderson, Armstrong, Hilton, McNulty and Mayor Granger. Councilman Anderson requested his vote be changed to "Aye" and matter be continued to next meeting. City Clerk bodge re -read communication from Weltner Motor Company asking for re- consideration of application for used car lot. Attorney Wayne Millington appeared before the Council in behalf of the Weltner Motor Company stating that he believed that the previous request had been presented incorrectly and that the Council did not understand dust where the property was. He stated there were two buildings - one on the southerly corner W 1� Is N