04-27-94 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 27, 1994 M/S/C John/Mottaz - to increase the funding authorization for support of our special counsel in relation to the Olson Lakes Estates water quality problem by an additional $5,000. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/C Johnson/John - to direct Special Counsel, Attorney Dayton to intervene by filing a verified pleading under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act Statute 116D.09 as indicated in his letter of April 22, 1994. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/C John/Johnston - to request Attorney Chuck Dayton attend the April 28, 1994 VBWD meeting. (Motion carried 5-0). 3. Section 32/33 Discussion: Councilman Mottaz reported that the State Statute states that you cannot annex property that does not abut. The annexation of the Brockman/Fraser property opened up the flood gate and was in violation of the statute because part of Minnehaha was Lake Elmo property and Lake Elmo's property went to the middle of 694. It was not possible for the Municipal Board to allow this property to go to Oakdale because it did not abut Oakdale. Mottaz asked the attorney to look into the possibility of going to court maintaining that because the Municipal Board acted in violation of the state statute what they did would have" to be declared null and void. Mottaz was at the Washington County court house today and found parcel 2701 is owned by the MN Dept. of Transportation. If these people made a deal in purchasing this property, they did not register this purchase. Therefore, it is still legally owned by MnDOT. If we cannot do this, he proposes to go back to the Municipal Board and point out they have the authority under the state statute to revisit this issue and straighten it out. . Administrator Kueffner reminded the council they had been given this option before and referred to Bruce Folz's letter. Bruce Folz took the MB findings (annexation petition March 10, 1989 by the MB) and that is how he arrived at the map of parcels detached from the City of Lake Elmo and annexed to the City of Oakdale without the owners signing the petition (highlighted in orange). The original petition was amended by the final order of the MB November 7, 1990. This final order added additional exceptions to the original petition. Result of their amendment was the retention of 9 parcels by the City of Lake Elmo. Folz obtained copies of the Wash Cty Tax parcel records and found that the county records are consistent with the final annexation order except Parcel 57033- 37033, 2611 in the S1/2 Section of 32. The County does not show the correct boundary and the county should be notified. Councilman Mottaz asked if there is any way the court can direct the Board to straighten out this mess? Filla did not think so at this point in time. There is a possibility that the Board on its own initiative or at our request would consider concurrent annexation and detachment of all of the areas surrounded by Lake Elmo. In the annexation statues there is a 7 day period to request the Board to amend, and then there is a 30 day period from the day of the order to appeal to