Laserfiche WebLink
Public Hearing <br />Chairperson Nixt called the public hearing to order at 7:34 p.m. <br />Presentation <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson presented the staff report. <br />Citizen Input <br />Chairperson Nixt read a letter from Commissioner Brauer, who was unable to attend the <br />Planning Commission meeting. The letter is attached. <br />Merlin Hunt, 17860 Nowthen Blvd. NW. Mr. Hunt stated that his opinion is that the wetland <br />protection ordinance is a taking of land because it takes from future development. He read parts <br />of a memo from Attorney Goodrich, included in the agenda. He provided a map showing how <br />the ordinance would affect his property. <br />Chairperson Nixt explained that the City Attorney has said that the ordinance on it's face is <br />constitutional, however an individual may be affected so adversely that they are left with no <br />reasonable economic use of the property that they can claim regulatory taking. <br />Mr. Hunt shared an article from the April 6, 2007, Anoka Union titled "No Changes are being <br />Urged for the Wetland. Conservation Act ". The article referred to the position of the Anoka <br />County Board. <br />Mr. Hunt referred to a letter to the editor where the writer stated that citizens of Ramsey need to <br />make their voices heard before a slight few ruin the remaining natural resources left in the City. <br />Mr. Hunt referred back to the Anoka Union article where it stated that the County has 70% of <br />pre - settlement wetlands left. He stated the wetlands are not disappearing so fast. <br />Mr. Hunt explained his management of the wetlands on his property and stated that since he <br />started his management plan there are more diverse .plants in the wetlands on his property. Mr. <br />Hunt ended his comments contending that this is certainly a taking of his property rights, and <br />secondly that he feels a buffer to isolate humans from nature is wrong, that managing wetlands is <br />much more beneficial than isolation. <br />Chairperson Nixt read the last two paragraphs of the City Attorney memo of which Mr. Hunt <br />referred. "In summary, it is my opinion that the City Code subsection 9.26.06 subd. 9, is not <br />categorically or per se unconstitutional, as all economically viable uses of the property will not <br />be taken as a result of implementation of the said subsection. With that said, however, it is <br />possible that a landowner's case specific facts could demonstrate that a regulatory taking has <br />occurred and inverse condemnation should be ordered by the court. The factors the court will <br />consider in making such a determination are those referenced in the Johnson case cited above. <br />Johnson v. Mpls. Supra." Those factors are:. The economic impact of the regulation on the <br />Planning Commission /April 2,2009 <br />Page 5. of 13 <br />