Resolution 2229 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ri . II .; . , - , j I , . I ., I i ,. I, I ;1 II RESOLUTION NO. 2229 . II STATE OF MINNESOTA I I II COUNTY OF RAMSEY Il CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON :1 n Ii RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT II OF A NUISANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 17 OF THE NEW BRIGHTON CITY CODE Ii I' WHEREAS, The property legally described as Lot 6, Block 2, II Silver Belt Addition and with an address of 626 Silver Lake I Ii Road, has no buUdir'lg and has accumulated signifiaantamounts ,! of rubbish, garbage, tree branches, trash debris, and rank il growths, and WHEREAS, The following findings of fact are made in I I respect to the above described property: I 1. On May 1, 1979 it was brought to the City Staff's I II attention that there existed a nuisance condition at the above described property. ,I 2. On May 3, 1979 the property was inspected by the 1\ 'I City Sanitarian and it was determined that there ij existed a public nuisance including accumulated n rubbish, garbage, tree branches, trash, debris I :, (, and rank growth and a clear and present danger in II the form of a large hole partially filled with II water. II 3. On May 7, 1979 orders were sent to the property 11 I! owners with a local address and subsequently new II orders were sent to the property owner with a corrected address in Great Falls, Montana. There I! was no response f~0m the property owner regarding I the orders in abating the nuisance conditions. 4 . It was determined that the hole partially filled II with water constituted a clear and present danger , II I II and much effort, including calling Great Falls, Montana and having the City Police contacting the I, police department in Great Falls, was made to I II contact the property owners. Despite all efforts, I Ii contact was not made with the property owners. H 5. On June 1, 1979 the large hole was filled by the I II City at a cost of $46.25. II 6. Un June 4, 1979 orders were again sent by registered i d ! Ii mail to the pro~erty owner informing that the I l~ I! hole had been filled and ordering the abatement II II of the remaining public nuisance. There was no II II response to this order. il 7. A third set of orders was again sent on June 20, II Ii 1979 indicating that if the nuisance conditions were not abated the City would order the abatement !l and assess the property for costs. There was no II response to these orders. il 8. That based on items 1-7 above it appears doubtful that the normal notice and prosecution procedure I if would be effective in removing the nuisance. II I I I I I I , I I I , I I I i ! I J I I II I ! I