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

Browse Search

City Clerk Dodge read communication from Elmer K. Ross, Chairman of the Recreation Commission, in which he advised that the Recreation. Commission had been informed that the Y. M. C. A. had withdrawn their request for $250.00 of city funds and recommended that inasmuch as there was no request for city funds -before the count 0 Inspector Duncan reported that the building was still standing and that he'had been unable to contact Mr. Carli in regard to the matter. City Attorney McCarthy reported he had prepared a resolution declaring the property to be a nuisance and, allowing the owner thirty days to remove it. Councilman Fletcher offered e adoption of resolution, seconded by Councilman McNulty. On roll call, motion carried unanimously. Mr. -C. E. Archibald appeared before the Council stating he believed there was a con— flict between the proposed zoning ordinance amendment and Ordinance No. 360, in regard to garages and outbuildings being built on a lot. City Attorney McC stated.he believed there was no conflict as Ordinance No. 360 is a building or construction ordinance and prohibits the construction of any garage or outbuilding until the main building has been 25`fo completed and that the section in the zoning ordinance under question has to do only with the location of garages in the case of multiple buildings. There is nothing in the amending ordinance which would N allow the construction of a garage or outbuilding alone on a piece of property. He stated that Ordinance No. 360 was not repealed by this amendment. i Councilman Britschgi asked if there was any law prohibiting the granting of a permit for the construction -of any -building. He stated he was referring to the fact that no permit was required for construction amounting up to y$50. He be— lieved that any construction regardless of price should require a permit: City e Attorney McCarthy stated that the city is operating under the State Building Code which provides that if any structure is to be built under $50 the Building 1 Inspector may require a permit to be applied for for a fee of fifty cents or he may dispense with this and issue a permit in writing. Building In"spector Duncan stated he intended to require a permit to be is -sued for any alteration and to { check on the alteration. City Attorney McCarthy stated the Council could enact an ® {� ordinance requiring every change to be preceded by writing for .a permit. Council. f main Britschgi stated he had particular reference to the garages being built in that the entire matter be dropped. Councilman Armstrong moved, seconded by Councilman McNulty, that the matter of request for city funds -be dropped from the agenda. Motion passed unanimously. Abatement proceedings against the Vic Michel Blacksmith Shop was next brought up for' ® discussion. Building Inspector Duncan advised the Council that the building was still standing. Councilman Armstrong asked what the legal status was of the ® � � proceedings. City -Attorney McCarthy advised the Council that posting of notices had been deferred on the assumption""that the owner of the property had sold the building to someone who was going to wreck the building. He stated the next t . step would be to past notices declaring the building to be a nuisance. Councilm Armstrong moved, seconded by Councilman Fletcher, that abatement proceedings be instituted against this building. i In the mattes of the abatement proceedings - against the Carli property, Building 0 Inspector Duncan reported that the building was still standing and that he'had been unable to contact Mr. Carli in regard to the matter. City Attorney McCarthy reported he had prepared a resolution declaring the property to be a nuisance and, allowing the owner thirty days to remove it. Councilman Fletcher offered e adoption of resolution, seconded by Councilman McNulty. On roll call, motion carried unanimously. Mr. -C. E. Archibald appeared before the Council stating he believed there was a con— flict between the proposed zoning ordinance amendment and Ordinance No. 360, in regard to garages and outbuildings being built on a lot. City Attorney McC stated.he believed there was no conflict as Ordinance No. 360 is a building or construction ordinance and prohibits the construction of any garage or outbuilding until the main building has been 25`fo completed and that the section in the zoning ordinance under question has to do only with the location of garages in the case of multiple buildings. There is nothing in the amending ordinance which would N allow the construction of a garage or outbuilding alone on a piece of property. He stated that Ordinance No. 360 was not repealed by this amendment. i Councilman Britschgi asked if there was any law prohibiting the granting of a permit for the construction -of any -building. He stated he was referring to the fact that no permit was required for construction amounting up to y$50. He be— lieved that any construction regardless of price should require a permit: City e Attorney McCarthy stated that the city is operating under the State Building Code which provides that if any structure is to be built under $50 the Building 1 Inspector may require a permit to be applied for for a fee of fifty cents or he may dispense with this and issue a permit in writing. Building In"spector Duncan stated he intended to require a permit to be is -sued for any alteration and to { check on the alteration. City Attorney McCarthy stated the Council could enact an ® {� ordinance requiring every change to be preceded by writing for .a permit. Council. f main Britschgi stated he had particular reference to the garages being built in