| OCR Text |
Show Centerville Council gives reluctant ordinance approval By TOM HARALDSEN CENTERVILLE City council coun-cil has approved ordinances pertaining per-taining to appeals of Planning Commission Com-mission decisions to the Board of Adjustments, but only with reluctance. reluct-ance. By a vote of 4-1, council agreed to changes which bring the city statutes sta-tutes in line with guidelines recently recent-ly handed down by the state's Supreme Sup-reme Court. Though only Councilman Council-man Doug Nielsen voted against approval, all council members ex pressed concern over the results of the changes, which shift powers away from the council and to the Board of Adjustment. Traditionally, municipal Boards of Adjustments have dealt with variances, small changes in building build-ing requirements or ordinances such as heights of fences or distances dis-tances of setbacks. But the Utah Supreme Court ruled recently that such boards should hear any disputes dis-putes on decisions handed down by O CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 Centerville Council action CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 city Planning Commissions. "The concern which Doug expressed, ex-pressed, and I think that was shared by other council members, is that the Board now may be dealing deal-ing with any number of appeals. All types could be thrown at them," city administrator David Hales pointed out. There is a movement afoot among mayors and administrators to introduce legislation that could change the law, and thus allow city councils and commissions the powers they've previously had to handle such disputes. "Should this law remain, it will drastically change the way we choose members of the Board of Adjustments," Hales said. "We will probably find citizens who've served on councils or planning commissions to sit on the Board." In other council business, an amendment to the Code of Revised Ordinances regulating control of backflow and cross connections was approved by unanimous vote. Public Works Director Randy Randall Ran-dall told council of problems which other municipalities have suffered due to backflow and cross connection connec-tion deficiencies, and showed members some of the devices the city is currently using to help avoid those problems. The ordinance deals with existing ex-isting homes which were built before be-fore uniform codes were included in building requirements. New homes are now required to be equipped to handle such problems. Federal guidelines are encouraging encourag-ing cities and towns to pass such ordinances as that approved by council, or to possibly face fines and penalties. Under the ordinance, ordi-nance, existing businesses and residences re-sidences will be required to make changes at their own expense, or risk having water service disconnected. discon-nected. Randall expressed concern to council that implementation of such changes will add manpower hours to his department's workload, work-load, perhaps as many as 600 hours. Staff was asked to bring back to council a plan for in plementation. As to costs, Randall said devices could range from $13 to $1,000. "I would estimate that there are 250 homes that would need some kind of back flow device, at a cost of anywhere between $17 and $150," he reported, adding that most of those homes were on private wells or received both types of residential residen-tial water from only one source. Schools and large industries would be most heavily affected. Randall told council that those businesses would also need annual testing, at a cost of between $50 to $100. Council also heard from accountant accoun-tant Ray H. Allen on his audit of fiscal 1988, and voted to accept the audit. And approval was given for purchase of a used five-ton bridge crane for the city's public works department at a cost of $16,000. The cost includes relocation of the crane plus painting, setup and minor repairs. A new crane of this variety runs about $50,000. |
