Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES July 9,2012 <br /> APPROVED <br /> - 91 shall establish a cartway if certain criteria is met. The city process has included the calling of a public <br /> L.i92 hearing by resolution that also included an order for Mr. Johnson to personally serve the resolution <br /> 93 upon the owners/occupants of the land. Affidavits of service have been provided. Mr. Johnson has <br /> 94 also provided escrow funds for city costs in the process. <br /> 95 <br /> 96 Community Development Director Grochala then outlined the three issues to be addressed: meeting <br /> 97 the threshold requirements of the statute, where the cartway should be located, and <br /> 98 damages/maintenance. <br /> 99 <br /> 100 City Attorney Langel noted that the council should hear from both sides,petitioner first and then the <br /> 101 homeowner association. There may be rebuttal time allowed afterward. The council will then decide <br /> 102 how to proceed. <br /> 103 <br /> 104 Mayor Reinert commented that a position paper had been submitted by the homeowners association <br /> 105 that seems to associate this process with eminent domain. He clarified that none of the proceedings <br /> 106 this evening have to do with such eminent domain and he doesn't want the issue clouded with that <br /> 107 talk. This involves private land and private parties and the law dictates the city council's <br /> 108 involvement. <br /> 109 <br /> 110 Joe Barnett, attorney for Mr. Johnson. He believes the homeowners' association brief is misapplied <br /> 111 in its statements. It is clear that the threshold requirements are met in this case. Mr. Johnson owns a <br /> 112 parcel of property that he doesn't have access to from a public roadway. They claim that there is <br /> l 13 reasonable access but that is not what the statute requires. The second issue is the proper location of <br /> x'114 the cartway. Mr. Johnson has indicated on a map a red line that shows the distance that he would <br /> 115 like to have established as a cartway(submitted for the record). The road already exists there and Mr. <br /> 116 Johnson is supposed to have access by a previous deed associated settlement agreement anyway(copy <br /> 117 of settlement agreement distributed). Regarding damages Mr. Johnson's position is that there are no <br /> 118 damages to the homeowners as there will be no impediment to their use. Apparently anyone besides <br /> 119 Mr. Johnson is currently allowed to use the roadway. Mr. Johnson has done everything possible to try <br /> 120 and resolve this without this action. The use requested is minimal. How he would use his land is <br /> 121 irrelevant. Mr. Barnett added that he has spoken with a member of the homeowners association and <br /> 122 there has been no vote of the association on their position. <br /> 123 <br /> 124 Adam Johnson, 2055 Otter Lake Drive, noted the cartway petition that he has submitted, his right to <br /> 125 access his land and his request to the council to uphold his right. He has tried to work this out <br /> 126 including through mediation. The bridge has been open to everyone but him. He owns property and <br /> 127 has maintained it well. He noted the docking easement that is in place. He has caused no damages by <br /> 128 use of the bridge and anticipates none in the future. He asks the council to uphold his rights and <br /> 129 establish the cartway. <br /> 130 <br /> 131 Dave Snyder, attorney representing the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association. He has heard <br /> 132 the mayor note the reference to eminent domain and asked if the city attorney is advising that he not <br /> 133 be allowed to reference the limitations created by the recently enacted statute regarding eminent <br /> 134 domain? The Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2007 indicated that the authority to create a cartway is <br /> L.,35 an exercise of eminent domain authority. Attorney Langel responded that no one is directing the <br /> 3 <br />