Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council Page Four <br /> Regular Meeting February 8, 1996 <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 dump 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 />