My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2021-08-10 P & Z Packet
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
1994-2025
>
2021
>
2021-08-10 P & Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2021 3:45:51 PM
Creation date
8/6/2021 3:45:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />The ordinance set forth a mandatory act intended to protect a particular <br />class of people and not just the general public. <br />The city’s action or inaction increased the risk of harm. <br />Danielson v. City of <br />The burden will be on the individual to demonstrate that the city has <br />Brooklyn Park, 516 N.W.2d <br />assumed such responsibility. While courts have been reluctant to find <br />203 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). <br />cities liable for otherwise private injuries, examples where such a duty has <br />been found includes: <br />Hansen v. City of St. Paul, <br />Someone bitten by a dangerous dog running at large, where the city <br />298 Minn. 205, 214 N.W.2d <br />had knowledge but failed to enforce its own ordinance. <br />346 (Minn. 1974). <br /> <br /> An employee who exceeds their authority by either making specific <br />Gilbert v. Billman Const., <br />Inc., 371 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. <br />promises to a homeowner that the conditions will be remedied or <br />1985). <br />provides a guarantee or approval as to private conditions. <br /> <br />It is important for cities to enforce their ordinances and to refrain from <br />making promises that they are unable or unwilling to keep. <br /> <br />V.Common nuisances <br /> <br />Nuisances are typically location-specific. Depending on the location, an <br />activity could be either appropriate or terribly harmful. It is generally <br />inappropriate to simply label something a nuisance without investigating <br />the actual impact upon the community. However, there are particular broad <br />categories of activities that often constitute nuisances. <br /> <br />A. Noise <br /> <br />Sounds are a byproduct of life. Inevitably, noise can negatively impact the <br />quality of life. Typical complaints involve: <br /> <br /> Barking dogs. <br />Lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and other similar equipment. <br />Radios. <br /> Construction equipment. <br /> Parties, concerts, and other social events. <br />Motor vehicles. <br />Village of Wadena v. <br />For noise to be considered a nuisance, it must significantly interfere with <br />Folkestad, 194 Minn. 146, <br />one’s enjoyment of life and property. Slight or occasional noises are <br />260 N.W. 221 (Minn. 1935). <br />City of Edina v. Dreher, 454 <br />typically not sufficient to create a nuisance condition. Similarly, those <br />N.W.2d 621 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />“usual” noises, such as the afternoon operation of a lawn mower, don’t <br />1990). <br />generally rise to nuisance levels. <br />Minn. Stat. § 116.07. <br />Although the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has statewide <br />MPCA. <br />authority over noise and noise control issues, local noise ordinances enable <br /> <br />city officials to address community concerns. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/16/2020 <br />Public Nuisances Page 8 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.