07/23/2012 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES July 9, 2012 DRAFT 91 shall establish a cartway if certain criteria is met. The city process has included the calling of a public • 92 hearing by resolution that also included an order for Mr. Johnson to personally serve the resolution 93 upon the owners /occupants of the land. Affidavits of service have been provided. Mr. Johnson has 94 also provided escrow funds for city costs in the process. 95 96 Community Development Director Grochala then outlined the three issues to be addressed: meeting 97 the threshold requirements of the statute, where the cartway should be located, and 98 damages /maintenance. 99 100 City Attorney Langel noted that the council should hear from both sides, petitioner first and then the 101 homeowner association. There may be rebuttal time allowed afterward. The council will then decide 102 how to proceed. 103 104 Mayor Reinert commented that a position paper had been submitted by the homeowners association 105 that seems to associate this process with eminent domain. He clarified that none of the proceedings 106 this evening have to do with such eminent domain and he doesn't want the issue clouded with that 107 talk. This involves private land and private parties and the law dictates the city council's 108 involvement. 109 110 Joe Barnett, attorney for Mr. Johnson. He believes the homeowners' association brief is misapplied 111 in its statements. It is clear that the threshold requirements are met in this case. Mr. Johnson owns a 112 parcel of property that he doesn't have access to from a public roadway. They claim that there is a13 reasonable access but that is not what the statute requires. The second issue is the proper location of 114 the cartway. Mr. Johnson has indicated on a map a red line that shows the distance that he would 115 like to have established as a cartway (submitted for the record). The road already exists there and Mr. 116 Johnson is supposed to have access by a previous deed associated settlement agreement anyway (copy 117 of settlement agreement distributed). Regarding damages Mr. Johnson's position is that there are no 118 damages to the homeowners as there will be no impediment to their use. Apparently anyone besides 119 Mr. Johnson is currently allowed to use the roadway. Mr. Johnson has done everything possible to try 120 and resolve this without this action. The use requested is minimal. How he would use his land is 121 irrelevant. Mr. Barnett added that he has spoken with a member of the homeowners association and 122 there has been no vote of the association on their position. 123 124 Adam Johnson, 2055 Otter Lake Drive, noted the cartway petition that he has submitted, his right to 125 access his land and his request to the council to uphold his right. He has tried to work this out 126 including through mediation. The bridge has been open to everyone but him. He owns property and 127 has maintained it well. He noted the docking easement that is in place. He has caused no damages by 128 use of the bridge and anticipates none in the future. He asks the council to uphold his rights and 129 establish the cartway. 130 131 Dave Snyder, attorney representing the Oak Brook Peninsula Homeowners Association. He has heard 132 the mayor note the reference to eminent domain and asked if the city attorney is advising that he not 133 be allowed to reference the limitations created by the recently enacted statute regarding eminent 134 domain? The Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2007 indicated that the authority to create a cartway is .35 an exercise of eminent domain authority. Attorney Langel responded that no one is directing the 3