Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, f!J6~ 11J..ex~w:rr:1.- <br />.t.dtacliBieBt B--' , <br /> <br />. Randall and Goodrich, ELI C <br /> <br />Memo <br /> <br />To: RAMSEY CITY COUNCIL <br />RAMSEY PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />CC: KURT ULRICH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR <br /> <br />From: WILLIAM K. GOODRICH, CITY ATTORNEY <br /> <br />Re: SECTION 9.26.06 OF.CITY CODE TITLED ''WETLAND BUFFER STRIPS~WHEN <br />REQlJIRED" <br /> <br />Date: MARCH 25, 2009 <br /> <br />At the City Co~ci1 meeting on February 24, 2009 'a discussion was held regarding the legal <br />validity of subsection 9.26.06 of City Code which subseCtion is titled "Wetland Buffer Strips~ When. <br />Required". This Subsection forms a part of the City's Comprehensive Wetland Protection regulation <br />whichis Section 9.26. <br /> <br />Ramsey City Cod~ subsyction 9.26.06 creates the requirement that Wetland Buffer Strips be <br />established for new lots of record ~r November 14, 2005. The length of a buffer strip depends on <br />the Wetland Management Classification. (subd. 6.) Variances regarding the width may be gnmted by <br />the City. (City Code subsection 9.27.07) The initial land subdivision applicant is responsible to <br />maintain the buffer strip. (City Code subsection 9.26.06 Subd. 4.) Subsequent purchasers do not need <br />to maintain the buffer strip; however, unless otherwise approved by the City, the following activities <br />are prohibited on the buffer strip: mowing; cutting of woody vegetation; filing, grading or excavating; . <br />disposal of yard waste; placement of structures; applicatio~ of herbicides. (subd; 5.) The issue is . <br />whether these prohibitions are constitutionally pennitted or are they a taking of private property <br />\ resulting in "inv~rse condemnation." <br /> <br />Inverse condenmation is "[t]he popular description of a cause of action against a govefmnental <br />defendant to recover the vaiue of property' which h8s been taken in fact by the governmental <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />. defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the <br />taking agency." Alevizo~ v. Metropolitan Airport, 216 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 1974) (citations oI?J-itted). <br />The property is deemed to be tak~n if the owner of the property has been "deprived of the practical <br /> <br />39 <br />