10-09-2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 9, 2002 However, a developer could challenge the pipeline policy, but whether or not the challenge would prevail is unknown. Montour suggested changing adopting a guideline rather than a policy. The City Attorney indicated that it doesn't matter what the City calls it. If it restricts development, it would be subject to challenge by a developer. Vance Johnson reported that Williams pipeline crosses a portion of this property. He indicated that there have been two leaks in the pipeline since 1966, and said that the safety of the pipeline is a real concern. Johnson pointed out that the pipe is old and possibly deteriorating, and felt there was the strong likelihood of future leaks. Johnson stated that his concern was with the safety of the people living in the area. He also agreed that a road should not be constructed on top of the pipeline easement in a parallel fashion. David Crary pointed out that the City has the benefit of many additional years of knowledge in term pipeline safety. He noted that at one point lead paint was acceptable, but it now has to be removed from buildings. Crary pointed out that the pipeline causes life safety concerns, and he asked that Little Canada be a leader in the issue of pipeline safety. Scalze agreed that this was a life safety issue, and she indicated that it didn't matter if the policy was called a policy, an ordinance, or a guideline. Scalze felt that the City should adopt apipeline/life safety policy. Scalze pointed out that there have been breaks in the line, the City has additional knowledge about pipelines than it did many years ago, and it is the duty of the Council to address life safety issues. Scalze felt that the Council had a duty to its present and future citizens to address this issue. Fahey pointed out that the State Statute says there shall be no building within the pipeline easement. He indicated that this Statute was likely based on whatever a standard width easement would be. Fahey noted that in this case, the City does not know the exact width of the easement. Fahey felt it was reasonable to require an additiona150-foot setback from the edge of the easement, his only reluctance in doing so would be the taking issue. Fahey asked if the Subdivision Ordinance clearly allows the City to prohibit the construction of a roadway on a pipeline easement in a paz~allel fashion. The City Attorney replied that it did. Fahey stated that he questions whether the City should adopt a policy or address the issue of a 50-foot setback from the edge of the easement as part of the plat. Scalze again asked about the enforceability of a policy. The City Attorney replied that if the City adopts a policy he would assume that it will be enforced, until such time as the court would tell the City it cannot be enforced or it is a taking. The City Administrator stated that he was still comfortable with the policy concept because of the flexibility it provides the City. The Administrator again noted that