8/23/11
The Indider has learned that a resident of Shorewood has prevailed in a zoning violation case due to faulty wording in the ordinance.
The ordinance contained the word "or" when it should have used "and." This seemingly small difference made the meaning ambiguous and was enough that the resident won the case.
Two years ago, the City lost an enforcement action involving a yacht club that claimed it had the right to have power boats, not just sailboats. The permit used the word "boat" while the City had intended it to say "sailboat." The court held for the yacht club.
How many more of these wording flubs are in City ordinances? Should the City go on a flub hunt? Where was the City Attorney when these ordinances and permits were written? What about the City Council and Planning Commission? Don't they have a duty to carefully review these things before enacting them? Maybe this is another case of what the Mayor described once as an attitude of staff knows best.
Happy Reading!
The Insider
Let's not forget the bungled CUP for 6170 Ridge Road where the city demanded that the owner remove a garage but ooops, the law had changed four years before. As a result it was no longer legal for the city to require removal. City code had not been updated to fit with the new statute. So where was our attorney? Fortunately the property owner found herself a good lawyer who set the city straight. Read http://weblink.ci.shorewood.mn.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=137376&dbid=0 and http://weblink.ci.shorewood.mn.us/weblink8/0/doc/151624/Page1.aspx.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you assume the intent of the Council was "and"? Maybe their intent was "or".
ReplyDeleteIn that case the City Planner and Council were pretending that mere words don't matter. They wanted it their way regardless of the contract. The city Attorney likely advised them of the slim chance of success. Maybe you could get a comment from the innocent, tax-paying victims of the city council.
Check YOUR spelling of "Fauty" in your title
ReplyDelete