07-09-2012 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES July 9, 2012 APPROVED 136 argument although there may be disagreement on the implications of the eminent domain law. 37 Attorney Langel suggested that the mayor is simply interested in focusing on cartway consideration. 138 Mr. Snyder indicated that his attorney's brief was submitted this afternoon and he has received no 139 opinion from the city attorney on it. The mayor reiterated that he doesn't believe that there is any 140 taking of land by the city. 141 142 Attorney Snyder requested that the cartway petition be denied for several reasons. There is no 143 compelling need for creation of a cartway. The property to which access is sought is part of a single 144 parcel. They believe the parcel is being accessed now and historically accessed without the bridge. It 145 may not be the most convenient access but there is access being used. Another approach and perhaps 146 the most practical would be construction of a bridge by the applicant. Another concern is that this 147 request is inconsistent with the limitation on establishment of cartways by cities; cities formerly could 148 create cartways by public road (eminent domain) and also by establishing private cartways (for use by 149 one individual)as is proposed here today. Because it is private in this case, eminent domain is no 150 longer allowed under statute (except for town roads or ditches). The city cartway statute is not 151 incorporated into the changes to eminent domain so the allowance for cities is only for public 152 cartways. The city only has powers provided to it under statute. He suggests that there are other 153 remedies for Mr. Johnson such as the public cartway laws. Also the use proposed would further 154 accelerate the use of the property for illegal hunting. Mr. Snyder added that there is the option of 155 seeking a statutory change but that should fall to the applicant rather than the city. In the matter of 156 damages,they believe a bond should be established. In regard to the settlement agreement that has 157 been mentioned and distributed by the applicant, his clients disagree that it is germaine and that it ` ,58 provides for access. He reminded the council that this action involves private property. x'159 160 Attorney Langel noted that Outlot A(location of the road) is owned by the homeowners association 161 and he asked if the group is active. Attorney Snyder responded that he doesn't know their activity 162 level but he is aware that they met to determine that they would resist any attempts to encroach upon 163 their private property. When Attorney Langel asked for records of their meeting, Mr. Snyder said he 164 could provide them in the future and added that of the three member board,two are present this 165 evening. 166 167 Julie Jeffrey Schwartz, 2140 Otter Lake Drive. She is concerned that the applicant has not provided 168 any appraisal information on damages. The association has paid money for a professional appraisal 169 estimating damages under either a public or private taking. She understands that the statute requires 170 the council to determine damages and she noted that the council has received only the homeowners' 171 appraisal. On the question of activity of the association,they are active and have registered with the 172 Secretary of State and did meet to authorized hiring of the appraiser and attorney. She discussed the 173 question of access and noted that there is currently a high water level and even under those 174 circumstances, Mr. Johnson has been able to cross to his property and has done so numerous times. 175 He has requested the cartway for walking, a lawnmower and for a garden tractor and she suggests that 176 those things can be brought to the property through a float or a bridge over the channel. She 177 questions if roadway access is being requested because of other plans to build or practice illegal 178 activity that has occurred in the past. She noted that Mr. Johnson is a professional hunter who 179 advertises services in the northeast metro and that his very disruptive activity has and would impact 4