Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />.~_.. ... <br /> <br />March 5, 1997 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />1996). I Under that interpretation the City would be compelled to deny permits or rezonings for <br />projects based on the failure of the proposed project to'solve noise problems that have no nexus <br />to the proposed use of that property, but were actually created by the neighboring freeway. <br />While such an interpretation might avoid litigation like the Apple Valley lawsuit, it would invite <br />much more serious litigation by property owners against the City and the State under the takings <br />clauses of the U. S. and Minnesota Constitutions. <br /> <br />In the interests of avoiding each kind of lawsuit, the City joins the proposer's request that <br />the MPCA issue either a formal exemption under Minn. Stat. ~116.07, subd. 2a(2), or provide <br />a "no action" letter confIrming that the City can company with its obligations under Minn. R. <br />7030.0030 without requiring the property owner to successfully abate excess noise from beyond <br />its borders as a condition for approval of permits or rezonings. <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br /> <br />A. Jensen <br />City of Roseville <br /> <br />RAJ/mad <br />pc: Sue Steinwall, Esq. <br />Darryl Shoemaker, Ph.D. <br />John M. Baker, Esq. <br />Steve Sarkozy <br />Dennis Welsch <br /> <br />lu/meJisd/wp/RosevillellO Il.114woodbridgelthomton.ltr <br /> <br />1 We understand that the Rechtzigel case was dismissed without prejudice on jurisdictional <br />grounds without an interpretation of the meaning of Rule 7030.0030. <br />