Agenda - Council - 03/13/2012 - Special

Home

also storing Lawn mowers, a snowblower, and snowmobiles on the Property. Appellant testified that there was no rubbish, junk, or debris on the Property, and therefore it was his opinion that he complied -with the September 13, 2007 letter. Appellant did contact the City for more information or detail as to what was expected of him regarding the conditions for compliance. In Appellant's opinion, the September 13, 2007 Ietter notice was extremely vague as to what was required of him and "nothing identifying specifically what needs to be done to come into compliance." 7. The City's conclusion was that 'Appellant had not complied with the September 13, 2007 letter. On October 12, 2007, City Administrator Kurds Ulrich sent Appellant a letter which stated the following: The September 13, 2007 Ietter ORDERED you to correct the violations within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the said letter OR request a hearing before a Hearing Examiner. You have failed to either correct the violation or request a hearing within the time allotted. Therefore, this letter is to advise you that at 9:00 a.m: on October 25, 2007, the City will come onto the Property and abate the nuisances in order to correct the City Code violations as described in the September 13, 2007 Order. PIease contact me if you have questions regarding this matter. Appellant testified that he received the September 13, 2007 Ietter and also indicated receipt of the letter by signing a certified mail receipt dated October 13, 2007. 8. As stated, Appellant did not contact the City following receipt of the September 13, 2007 letter, nor did he request a hearing with a hearing examiner as provided in the letter. Instead, Appellant filed a document titled "Emergency Petition for Wirt of Prohibition or Other Appropriate Writ, Motion for Expedited Review" in Anoka County District Court on October 17, 2007. The document sought to restrain the City from performing the abatement process on the Property. 4