09-13-1999 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 23, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 22 Greg Peterson,representing Oakwood Land Development and Peggy Haselius,stated Mrs.Haselius was not present at the meeting because, regardless of the outcome of this matter, she would still be neighbors with those present, and would like to remain on friendly terms with her neighbors, as best she can. He stated that Mrs. Haselius did not feel comfortable speaking in this environment. Mr. Peterson stated when the plat was developed in 1982, Mrs. Haselius agreed to dedicate the lots to the City for easement purposes, because the City and the County required that. He stated she, in good faith, agreed to do that, as she believed there was nothing else she could do, and that they were the experts and made the decisions. He stated, since that time, they have become better informed in delineating wetlands. He stated that Rice Creek Watershed District had found that the subject lots are not located in the wetland. He stated that it was not uncommon that a permanent decision has been made, and upon the introduction of new facts, the decision is subsequently changed. Mr. Peterson stated he understood the neighbor's argument. He stated there were, however, two problems in this regard. He stated one problem was that they are not the landowner, and it was not their land being discussed. He stated the other problem is that they are not wetland delineation experts. He stated the neighbor's primary argument is that they like the property the way it is. He stated he understood this, however, in his opinion, it was really a land use question, and inquired how much right does a landowner have. He inquired, in light of these new facts, should Mrs. Haselius have the right to sell her land. He stated Mrs. Haselius has been a resident of Mounds View for 51 years. He stated he thought it was only fair to her to give her back what she had originally agreed was wetland, in consideration of the new facts. Mr. Peterson stated that he agreed that the flooding problem was not good. He stated, however, they were proposing to create three times the existing flood storage capacity,which should assist with the problem in that area. Mr. Peterson stated when Mrs. Haselius dedicated the easements to the City, it was voluntary, yet she felt she did not have a choice. He stated in order to develop her property, she had to do this. He stated it was the City, the County and the Engineer's determination that these were wetlands. He stated that now they know they are not. He stated the buffer zone argument is the most valid, as the construction would be within the buffer zone. He stated he did not believe it uncommon for City Councils and Planning Commissions to allow people to build within those buffer zones. He stated he believed this matter was intrinsic to land use rights. He stated Mrs. Haselius paid taxes on the subject property for many years, and when Good Value and Oakwood Land Development thought they owned the land, they paid the taxes on it as well. He stated it has not been the City's property, it is their property, which the City uses for drainage. Mr. Peterson stated that they were requesting that Mrs. Haselius be allowed to sell her property. He stated it was her property, and there is no wetland or water drainage issue, they were simply requesting that Mrs. Haselius be allowed to sell her land. 22C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-23-99.CC