Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 14, 2015 <br />him, he recommended that the fee be waived. The City Attorney also <br />indicated that Mr. Berres informed him that there was a Supreme Court <br />Case, Morris vs. Sax Investment in May of 2008 that would set precedent <br />relative to his situation and support his ability to make safety <br />improvements at the duplex as well as continue the structures use as such. <br />The City Attorney reported that after reviewing this case, it is his opinion <br />that it is not applicable to the Berres situation. <br />Roger Berres indicated that he had wanted the opportunity to discuss the <br />City Attorney's opinion with him prior to the meeting, but was just handed <br />the letter this evening. Berres then cited several sections of the City's <br />Zoning Code General Provisions which he claimed supported his ability to <br />make safety improvements to his property. It was Herres' contention that <br />provisions 903.010.C. and G. would take precedent over 903.010.I -I. <br />Berres indicated that it was his intention to proceed with safety <br />improvements to the property. He also indicated that it was his intention <br />to continue the use of the property as a duplex, and suggested that the City <br />file an injunction against him. Once that injunction is filed, Berres <br />indicated that he would take the matter to District Court and have a judge <br />make a decision on who is interpreting the Code correctly. <br />The City Administrator noted that until the non -conforming status is <br />addressed, there could be no building permits pulled for the property. He <br />also indicated that if improvements commence without a building permit, <br />the City will issue stop work orders. Keis noted that the City will need to <br />follow its Codes in this matter. <br />ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. <br />Attes <br />nson, City Administrator <br />13 <br />