Laserfiche WebLink
CASE #3: <br /> <br />CASE #4: <br /> <br />Backgromnd Information: The following is submitted for your <br />information: <br /> <br />a) <br /> <br />Enclosure (D2-b) is a petition from citizens who are <br />neighbors of the Nugents and are complaining about the <br />operation. <br /> <br />b) The following ordinances are being violated by Mr. Nugent: <br /> <br />i) <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />3) <br /> <br />Paragraphs 110.092 and 110.09~ of the City Code. <br />Please refer to enclosure (D2-a). <br />Subparagraphs (3), (f), and (g) to paragraph 2 of <br />Section 110.171 of the City Code. Please refer to <br />enclosure (D2-c). <br />During the week ofMay 26, 1980, we again received <br />complaints about the Nugent operation. Accordingly, <br />on June 2, 1980, Art Dunn and myself visited the <br />Nugent place smd talked to Mr. Nugent about the com- <br />plaints. He showed us the manure pile which is rather <br />large for being in a City. There was a very definite <br />odor but it seemed to be from the concrete hog yard <br />not the manure pile. <br /> <br />Mr. Nugent was very disgusted that the City was <br />bothering him about his hobby farm operation, etc. <br /> <br />4) We have been out there on nomerous occasions on com- <br /> plaints and with the Minnesota Pollution Control <br /> Agency on the pollution of Ford Creek. The PCA <br /> states they can't get involved because our ordinance <br /> states the Nugent's can't have that operation there. <br />5) Mr. Nugent also put up a steel galvanized fence which <br /> has also really irritated the people out there and has <br /> also helped to create a problem. <br /> <br />Comments: If the Council doesn't change the meaning of the <br />present ordinance, the City will proceed to prosecute this <br />violation of the City Code. <br /> <br />SPLITTING OF OUTLOT "A" ROI~LING GREENS, REQUEST FOR; CASE OF <br /> <br />ART RAUDIO: <br /> <br />~lr. Raudio will be coming before Council to discuss the above <br />matter with you. Council at their last meeting stated no <br />his request to split this Outlot "A". ~ ~~ <br /> <br />ADOPTION OF FINAL PYESOLUTION REGARDING INDUSTRIAL REVENUE <br /> <br />BONDS, REQUEST FOR; CASE OF MR. CHARLES SODERHOLM: <br /> <br />Council at their meeting of April 22, 1980, granted preliminary <br />approval to the above party's proposed industrial revenue bond <br />in the amount of $225,000. Consequently, at this meeting you <br />will be requested to grant final approval on said bond. <br />Please refer to enclosure (D2-d) for the above said resolution. <br />The City will not be encurring any financial obligation in <br />regards to this resolution. <br /> <br /> <br />