The January 10 Peterson Council meeting packed in standard annual designations, as well as several items of review. For the most part, everything remains the same as in 2017 including liability coverage, Friends of Peterson usage of municipal locations, application of a Southeast Minnesota Arts Council grant, polling places and election judges. Items pulled for additional consideration included city ordinances, including a zoning violation.
“I’m recommending you consider updating city ordinances,” said City Clerk Christopher Grindland. On behalf of the city, Grindland requested copies of the most current ordinances from the League of Minnesota Cities. Previously, cities with populations under 2,000 often looked to The Minnesota Basic Code for ordinance guideline or adoption of the code as a whole with some modification. Now, the league has offered up a Livable City Code, devised as a starting point for cities with a population under 500. Peterson’s population hovers right around 200.
Upon receipt, Grindland suggested the city’s Planning Commission convene to review the new code and discuss Peterson’s needs. Following that review, the city council would review commission recommendations prior to holding a public hearing for the ordinance changes. Only after a hearing could the council vote on whether or not to adopt the changes. Adoption of new code would assist the city in better enforcing its ordinances.
In 2011, the city used Minnesota Basic Code to update all ordinances, except zoning. Then, in 2014, the city reviewed Minnesota Basic Code Chapter 15 to determine if it would better fit zoning needs. Eventually, the code was adopted with some modifications. Since then, the city has worked diligently to keep properties in compliance.
Speaking to zoning, Grindland indicated there is a property in town which is in violation. According to the clerk, the residents of a unnamed parcel have erected a hoop shed on a rented property some seven weeks ago. The unit was put in place without a permit and is now subject to a $400 late permit fee.
The residents were approached by a city councilor and directed to acquire a permit. When they did not, Grindland walked a permit to the property. Now five weeks later, no permit has been filed for the shed and the residents have not responded to either request.
Following zoning guidelines, the city will have its attorney, Nethercut Schieber PLLP, draft a letter to both the property resident and the property owner specifying the ordinance and how to proceed. Councilor Loren Rue questioned whether or not the city could give an option of having the structure removed and prohibition of application for permits for one year put in place. It was determined that since additional options are not currently spelled out in the ordinances, the city has no option forward other than to send the letter and apply the fine.
Councilor Dave Colbenson suggested perhaps the city should acquire time stamped photos of the shed for proof. “It would be different if there was open communication with the council, instead of ignoring us,” he added. “How much would the permit have cost?” Without exact measurements of the shed, Grindland was unsure, as it’s based on square footage, however, a permit for it was estimated to be around $10.
The fine will go against the property. When questioned about whether or not the property owner was aware of the structure it was noted that all residents are aware of the zoning ordinances, a public meeting had been held prior to adoption, and that it was up to property owners whether or not they wanted to attend and voice any concerns.
“There’s no window built in,” added Councilor Gail Boyum.
“All you’re doing is giving them another opportunity,” added Mayor Tim Hallum. “No.”
The next regularly scheduled meeting is Wednesday, February 14, at 6 p.m., at city hall. The public is encouraged to attend.
Leave a Reply