Laserfiche WebLink
Lak* Minnatonka Consarvation District <br />Ragular Board idaatlng <br />August 28,2002 PagaB <br />concept of eliminating the ordinance that has already been adopted by the Board. The MCWD has spent a large <br />anxHint of money restoring wetlands near Lake Harriet and he believ^ that could be prevented in the upper <br />watershed district by establishing the correct mechanisms. <br />Nelson stated ttrat he would be supportive of continued discussions with property owners who can document <br />historical usage, possibly through a conservation easement, as long as it limits the number of boats be stored. <br />McMillw stated that in the draft ordinance amendment pertaining to Six Mile Creek, there was not language that <br />described the area upstream of the fish traps from the Ralph Hatch residence. <br />LeFevere stated that he was aviraiting the legal description of this location from the legal counsel for the four <br />property owners. <br />Babcock stated th^t he would prefer the Board not t^e action on the <br />variety of reasons. <br />• IIw w id ordinance amendment for a <br />MOTION: Babcock moved. Nelson seconded to table discussion on fte draft ordinance amendment to <br />a future Board meeting. <br />Mr. Chris Dietzen, legal counsel for the four property owners on Six Mile Creek, stated that he would like to be <br />heard before there was a vote on the motion. <br />Foster denied the request from Dietzen because Robert ’s Rule of Order does not allow for discussion on motion <br />to table. <br />Dietzen stated that the Board had incomplete information that was not included in the Board packet. <br />Babcock clarified that h,s motion was to table action on the draft ordinance amendment to a future Bo»d meeBna <br />rather than table discussion of it at this meeting. ^ <br />Foster asked LeFevere for interpretation of the motion, <br />LeFevere stated that he believed the motion was out of order because there was no motion on the floor to table <br />It appearerf that the intent of the motion made was to decide how to limit discussion of the proposed ordinance <br />amendment, noting that this coukJ possibly be achieved through another motion <br />Babcodt stated that his intent would be to allow for discussion of the proposed ordinance amendment at this <br />meeting; however, not take formal action on it at this meeting. <br />Foster ruled the motion out of order. <br />Dieted stated foat correspondence was previously submitted that stated the ordinance adopted by the Board <br />applied to his clients was unlawful. Improper, unconstitutior.al, and a taking of riparian rights. An invitation was <br />^viously made to investigate whether something could be done to resolve these issues. A verbal proposal has <br />be^ade that wouW iTKJude either nwving the point of demarcation upstream from his clients or possibly <br />grandfatherinn. Draft ordinance arnendrnents have been prepared that would either rnove the point of <br />wre^tla. w. grarnffather his clients based on the discussion at the previous Boad rneeting. His clients have <br />agreed to the following relating to these ordinance amendments; 1) that grvidfather rights would not extend to <br />r]