02-04-86 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1986 Page 6 agenda. I called Mr. Mazzara and asked him whether he had anything to discuss with me, and he denied it. I told Mike that I would meet with the City Attorney, Administrator and Building Inspector any time or any place, but he indicated he would not do that. This is not the way the City of Lake Elmo has ever conducted business in the past. What Mr. Mazzara is after is some publicity in his own political motives which we are all aware of. This matter should have been handled by the City Attorney and the Administrator. If there is a problem, they should bring it up to the City. Mr. Mazzara's methods are an abuse of power. I have discussed this with the City Administrator, with the City Attorney present, and have shown him the area. I don't have to go into any great detail, but the use of this property goes back 25 ,years. Yes, there are some advertisements in the phone book. I also asked Mr. Mazzara as to how many other barns have you looked into and I listed more than just those four. The purpose of the new building was twofold; I have a tree farm operation and I needed additional space. I plan, hopefully, in the next seven or eight years to get back into farming the land myself. I have no desire to develop this land, but I am going to make use of whatever buildings I have and will not leave them empty to please Mr. Mazzara. That building was built for a farming purpose. I would like to ask the City Attorney to indicate the opinion he indicated to me and Mr. Mazzara at the close of that Monday meeting. Mayor Morgan stated that in the ten years that he has been on the City Council, this is the first time the Council has ever been used to publicly make an accusation. I would have preferred that this be handled administratively and this was my recommendation. It was not, and I regret that very much because we have so many important worthwhile things that this government should be doing. City Administrator Overby handed out a section of the code from the Ag zone and commercial zone which gives reference to definitions of permitted uses in both districts. We didn't consider this portion which starts on page 301-63, Section 301.130 at the meeting on Monday. Mr. Armstrong stated that this is a farm building and that was the subject of the correspondence that took place with the Building Inspector. The law clearly states in the State Building Code, Section 301B.12, that Ag buildings as defined in MN statutes shall not require a building permit for agricultural buildings. City Attorney Knaak advised the City Council that we are dealing with two versions of what is going on on the same parcel of property. The language of th6 code has an ambiguity as to the definition of a farm building. We did meet on Monday with Mr.