My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/23/2012 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2012
>
07/23/2012 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2014 2:57:10 PM
Creation date
1/10/2014 12:21:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
07/23/2012
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COUNCIL MINUTES July 9, 2012 <br />DRAFT <br />136 argument although there may be disagreement on the implications of the eminent domain law. <br />137 Attorney Langel suggested that the mayor is simply interested in focusing on cartway consideration. <br />138 Mr. Snyder indicated that his attorney's brief was submitted this afternoon and he has received no <br />139 opinion from the city attorney on it. The mayor reiterated that he doesn't believe that there is any <br />140 taking of land by the city. <br />141 <br />142 Attorney Snyder requested that the cartway petition be denied for several reasons. There is no <br />143 compelling need for creation of a cartway. The property to which access is sought is part of a single <br />144 parcel. They believe the parcel is being accessed now and historically accessed without the bridge. It <br />145 may not be the most convenient access but there is access being used. Another approach and perhaps <br />146 the most practical would be construction of a bridge by the applicant. Another concern is that this <br />147 request is inconsistent with the limitation on establishment of cartways by cities; cities formerly could <br />148 create cartways by public road (eminent domain) and also by establishing private cartways (for use by <br />149 one individual) as is proposed here today. Because it is private in this case, eminent domain is no <br />150 longer allowed under statute (except for town roads or ditches). The city cartway statute is not <br />151 incorporated into the changes to eminent domain so the allowance for cities is only for public <br />152 cartways. The city only has powers provided to it under statute. He suggests that there are other <br />153 remedies for Mr. Johnson such as the public cartway laws. Also the use proposed would further <br />154 accelerate the use of the property for illegal hunting. Mr. Snyder added that there is the option of <br />155 seeking a statutory change but that should fall to the applicant rather than the city. In the matter of <br />156 damages, they believe a bond should be established. In regard to the settlement agreement that has <br />157 been mentioned and distributed by the applicant, his clients disagree that it is germaine and that it <br />158 provides for access. He reminded the council that this action involves private property. <br />159 <br />160 Attorney Langel noted that Outlot A (location of the road) is owned by the homeowners association <br />161 and he asked if the group is active. Attorney Snyder responded that he doesn't know their activity <br />162 level but he is aware that they met to determine that they would resist any attempts to encroach upon <br />163 their private property. When Attorney Langel asked for records of their meeting, Mr. Snyder said he <br />164 could provide them in the future and added that of the three member board, two are present this <br />165 evening. <br />166 <br />167 Julie Jeffrey Schwartz, 2140 Otter Lake Drive. She is concerned that the applicant has not provided <br />168 any appraisal information on damages. The association has paid money for a professional appraisal <br />169 estimating damages under either a public or private taking. She understands that the statute requires <br />170 the council to determine damages and she noted that the council has received only the homeowners' <br />171 appraisal. On the question of activity of the association, they are active and have registered with the <br />172 Secretary of State and did meet to authorized hiring of the appraiser and attorney. She discussed the <br />173 question of access and noted that there is currently a high water level and even under those <br />174 circumstances, Mr. Johnson has been able to cross to his property and has done so numerous times. <br />175 He has requested the cartway for walking, a lawnmower and for a garden tractor and she suggests that <br />176 those things can be brought to the property through a float or a bridge over the channel. She <br />177 questions if roadway access is being requested because of other plans to build or practice illegal <br />178 activity that has occurred in the past. She noted that Mr. Johnson is a professional hunter who <br />179 advertises services in the northeast metro and that his very disruptive activity has and would impact <br />4 <br />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.