[Winona Online Democracy] Below is an article on a court decision regarding a battle between Lake Elmo and the Met Council. Might relate to our local issues concerning who controls what concerning growth in a geographic area. I know the Met Council has special legal powers that direct its control over such things and affected the Court's decision. I just thought this might bring a different perspective. The article is copied below.
****************** Posted on Fri, Aug. 06, 2004 Ruling reins in Lake Elmo Decision backs Met Council's right to change local growth plans BY MARY DIVINE Pioneer Press Marking a victory for regional interests, the Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Metropolitan Council has the authority to require changes in local growth plans. The decision, which marked the third courtroom loss in two years for Lake Elmo, said the Met Council can require changes in local comprehensive plans that vary significantly from regional plans and can force Lake Elmo to connect to the regional sewer system. The ruling gives the Met Council, not cities, the last word on land use, said Curt Johnson, who chaired the council from 1995-1998. "For the first time we have clarity — that's where the victory lies." Lake Elmo officials, who lost before an administrative law judge and the state appeals court before bringing their case to the Supreme Court, warned of the ruling's implications. "I think this should be a wake-up call for every community that believes they are in control of the planning and zoning and the future development of their city," said City Administrator Marty Rafferty. Mayor Lee Hunt said the city has nine months to prepare a comprehensive plan to meet the Met Council's requirements. He estimates the city would have to start taking on more growth in the next few years. But he also said the city would continue to push for legislation that would limit the council's authority "to override local units of governments' planning process." A bill that would have allowed the city to remain rural died last winter in the state Senate. Met Council Chairman Peter Bell said it was unfortunate the council was "forced to engage in this costly and protracted legal battle, when all along the council felt the region is better served by collaboration and negotiation. We hope we can work with the city to achieve changes in Lake Elmo's plan that will serve the best interests of that community and the region as a whole." Bell said he couldn't control any changes to state law. "The Legislature gets to determine these things, and if they want to alter it, that would be their decision." Development should be handled efficiently, Bell said. "State and regional taxpayers have made significant investments in that part of the region to keep pace with growth, including major highways, a 2,200-acre regional park reserve and sewer capacity," he said. But Lake Elmo officials argued that the Met Council had no authority to push the city to accept proposed sewer lines and, in turn, more growth. Met Council officials said they were not trying to fundamentally change Lake Elmo's rural character, but had asked the city to accommodate higher density along Interstate 94. The council's plan would have allowed much of the rest of the city to grow at lower densities as called for in Lake Elmo's original plan, Bell said. But city officials said they should be allowed to choose the pace of growth. "Many people feel that the Met Council has been given broad authority to do whatever they please without having any accountability to the regional voters," said Mayor Hunt. Hunt said the city of 7,000 has spent more than $340,000 on its legal battle with the Met Council. It's the first time a city has appealed a council rejection of a comprehensive plan. Lake Elmo residents had mixed reactions to the ruling. "I think it's very sad," said Deb Krueger, owner of Krueger's Sprucegate Farms. "It scares me that individual communities do not have the right to decide for themselves how they wish to grow." If the Met Council were to force sewer hookup to their 48 acres, Krueger said their tree farm would be out of business. "We'd lose our land. We'd lose our home. We'd lose everything," she said. She praised the city for spending money on the lengthy court battle, saying "just think what it would cost us if we didn't fight." But Gene Peltier, who farms 160 acres along the north side of I-94, said the city wasted taxpayer money. Peltier, who tried unsuccessfully 17 years ago to get his land annexed into Woodbury, was cautiously optimistic Thursday that he eventually would be able to develop his 160 acres — just across the highway from the former Prime Outlets site in Woodbury. "This is great news. It's going to take us out of the 19th century and put us into the 21st century," he said. "We're sitting here in Lake Elmo with all this farmland and across the road in Woodbury, that's like a different country. They can't build them fast enough. It's really frustrating to see." Now, Peltier hopes that he and his wife, Ann, and their nine children will reap some financial benefit from the land, which features three-quarters of a mile of frontage road property. Real estate experts estimate that land with sewer and water along I-94 would be worth $100,000 to $130,000 an acre, compared to $30,000 to $50,000 without. Only a small percentage of Lake Elmo — 110 acres in the city's southwest corner — has those services. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Mary Divine covers Washington County. She can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 651-228-5443. Dueling visions for Lake Elmo LAKE ELMO • Has planned for maximum population of 12,500 in 2020. Current population is about 7,000. • Wants to control development along I-94 and southern part of city. • Does not want regional residential sewer system. • Wants concentrated development in Old Village area and cluster development in rest of city. MET COUNCIL • Has planned for population of 34,000 by 2040. • Wants development in future urban area near I-94 to be at higher density than city wants. • Wants regional residential sewer in most of city. • Calls for urban reserve area for further sewered development between 2020 and 2040. _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
