Minutes - Council - 01/11/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

including legal descriptions or addresses. The zoning map, although it is available for viewing at City Hall is not available for circulation in a book or pamphlet form and it put the burden on the resident to determine if their property would be impacted. He cited a Supreme Court case Pilgrim versus the City of Winona, in which the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s ruling that a map is not a book nor pamphlet according to a Minnesota State Statute. He continued that the Ramsey City Attorney has quoted the Bemidji case where three years had passed so a statute of limitation had passed. He felt this was different because in the Bemidji case, everything was done correctly from the beginning. With this case, he felt that City is still not in compliance because the map is not readily available for public circulation in book or pamphlet form. He continued that the Supreme Court also stated in the Pilgrim versus the City of Winona case that there was a lack of notice of public hearings as required by State Statue, which he didn’t feel was followed in this case. He continued if there is a legal challenge to this zoning, it should stop the development until the case is settled and even if the Council doesn’t believe the legal arguments, he believes this is a moral vote for them as elected officials. Shar Rubineye from Andover stated Mr. Makowsky is one of the longest residents of Ramsey and she hoped that the Council takes his statements into consideration. Motion by Councilmember Woestehoff, seconded by Councilmember, to close the public hearing. A roll call vote was performed Councilmember Heineman aye Councilmember Woestehoff aye Councilmember Specht aye Councilmember Musgrove aye Councilmember Riley aye Councilmember Howell aye Mayor Kuzma aye The public hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m. Council Business Councilmember Howell referenced Mr. Walker’s comments about the court case of Pilgrim versus the City of Winona. She asked City Attorney Knaak how this case differs from the case of Pilgrim versus the City of Winona. City Attorney Knaak replied this issue as it relates to this case relates to publication. Ramsey did have a published ordinance. With regard to the statement that in the Bemidji case everything was done correctly, he stated that the opposite of that is true. There is a long list that the City of Bemidji had done incorrectly and if any of them had not been subject to this exclusion, that ordinance would have failed. What the Supreme Court ruled that saved the ordinance was the provision of law; after three years it is presumptively valid. There is no question for him that the Ramsey ordinance in question is presumptively valid and even if Mr. Walker’s statements are true, it doesn’t matter if not brought up within three years. City Council / January 11, 2022 Page 9 of 25