Laserfiche WebLink
WS — Item 2 <br />WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT <br />Work Session Item No. 2 <br />Date: July 2, 2012 <br />To: City Council <br />From: Michael Grochala <br />Re: Otter Lake Drive Cartway <br />Background <br />A petition to establish a cartway was submitted from Mr. Adam Johnson, 2055 Otter <br />Lake Drive, to establish a cartway easement to provide access to a landlocked parcel he <br />owns. <br />Minn. Stat. § 435.37 provides that upon petition presented to the city council, by the <br />owner of a tract of land containing at least five acres, who has no access thereto except <br />over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others the city council by resolution shall <br />establish a cartway of at least two rods wide (33 feet) connecting the petitioner's land <br />with a public road. <br />On March 26, 2012 the City Council called for a hearing to be held on July 9, 2012 to <br />consider the establishment of a cartway. Since this request is somewhat unique for the <br />City staff is providing an overview of the procedure to be followed at the hearing: <br />1. Mayor calls the agenda item <br />2. Staff introduces the subject matter and the parties, and outlines issues to be <br />addressed by the Council. <br />3. Mayor opens hearing. <br />i. Note: the parties can present their case and others may offer commentary, <br />and the Council can ask questions, but the parties have no right to cross <br />examine each other. <br />4. The petitioner, Mr. Johnson should present his case first. There are 3 issues to be <br />addressed: <br />i. Whether the threshold requirements for establishing a cartway are met. <br />Those requirements are: <br />• Petitioner owns a tract of land at least five acres in size; and <br />• He has no access to it except over a navigable waterway or over <br />the lands of others. <br />ii. Where the cartway should be located <br />iii. Damages <br />5. The affected property owners would then have an opportunity to respond on the <br />same issues. <br />6. The petitioner should be allowed to rebut the property owner's case. <br />