Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> Your affiant further observed that a fence constructed within the front yard of the <br /> Subject Property is approximately six feet ta11 in violation of City Code provisions <br /> prohibiting the construction of fences higher than forty-two inches. <br /> From the exterior of the property, City staff also observed that the gazage on the <br /> Subject Property is fu11 of tires. Based on observations of City sta.ff and <br /> complaints received by the City that the owner of the Subject Property routinely <br /> receives truckloads of tires, the tires in the gazage indicate that the owner of the <br /> Subject Property is illegally operating a bu,siness selling tires from his garage. As <br /> observed by City staff, storage of the tires in the garage is unsafe and may <br /> constitute a fire hazard. <br /> On May 9, 2011, your affiant performed a third inspection and found that all of <br /> the previously observed City Code violations persisted. <br /> On November 9, 2011, City staff posted notice of the City Code violations at the <br /> Subj ect Property. As of December 14, 2011, the property owner has neither <br /> responded to the notice nor abated the violations. <br /> Your �ant's observations regarding the conditions and code violations on the <br /> property have led your affiant to believe that the Subject Property is inadequately <br /> maintained, dilapidated, physically damaged, in an unsanitary condition, and <br /> constitutes a hazard to public safety and health. <br /> Based on your�ant's observations and based on your�ant's knowledge of hazards to <br /> health and safety, your affiant has probable cause to believe that the Subject Property meets the <br /> definition of hazardous property as stated in Minn. Stat. § 463.15 subd. 3. The hazardous <br /> conditions must be abated or repaired immediately pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 463. <br /> 161492v1 <br />