Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council <br />• Regular Meeting <br />Page Four <br />February 8, 1993 <br />it on private property as long as he had written permission. <br />Mr. Minetor stated that debris would still have to be disposed of in a <br />proper manner. <br />Mr. McCarty stated that the ordinance does not state that. Mr. McCarty <br />stated that the final sentence of the ordinance states that it shall be <br />unlawful to place any type of debris into the street right-of-way on <br />public sidewalks or in any boulevard between the street and the <br />sidewalk for which the property owner does not have written permission. <br />Mr. McCarty stated that he reads the ordinance as saying that as long <br />as he has written permission he can damp any type of debris on private <br />property. <br />Mr. Minetor referred to the first paragraph of the ordinance regarding <br />debris which stated that the type of material has to be properly <br />disposed of in accordance with city ordinances and applicable state <br />laws. Minetor used leaves as an example and the proper way of <br />disposing of leaves would be composting. Therefore, if the property <br />owner gave written permission for someone to dump leaves on his <br />property, the leaves would have to be composted. Other types of debris <br />would have to be disposed of in a proper manner no matter where they <br />are placed. <br />Mr. McCarty stated that he would agree with this explanation if the <br />type of debris were only leaves, but the ordinance calls out any type <br />of debris. <br />Councilmember Rickaby stated that Mr. McCarty's logic is faulty in that <br />the ordinance says it is unlawful to dispose of debris unless you have <br />written permission, but this does not mean once you dispose of debris <br />with written permission it doesn't have to be done properly. <br />McCarty further asked that debris is dirt and is depositing of dirt <br />on private property proper disposal. McCarty stated that this is not <br />necessarily proper disposal and the Council is opening Pandora's Box. <br />Mr. McCarty stated that his concern is not with the nitty gritty <br />details of the ordinance but that his continuing concern is the City's <br />involvement with property owners in this written permission back and <br />forth. McCarty stated that he discussed this with some of his <br />neighbors and they were in agreement. The major concern is the fact <br />that government is reaching its long arm into the resident's private <br />lives once again with more regulations and Mr. McCarty stated that he <br />very strongly feels it is not necessary. <br />Mr. McCarty presented to the Council a counter proposal for Council <br />consideration. Mr. McCarty read his proposed ordinance in which he <br />stated the language is clearer and more easily interpreted. <br />