Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Permitting topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council tables Milaca Park lot split and variance amid alleged CUP violations

City of Milaca City Council · November 20, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council tabled a lot‑split and variance for the Milaca Park property after the city attorney reported ongoing conditional‑use permit and nuisance violations; Milaca Park LLC and tenant agreed to a 60‑day extension to Jan. 25, 2025 to address the issues.

The Milaca City Council on Nov. 20 tabled consideration of a minor lot split and variance for the property operated as Milaca Park after the city attorney described continuing violations of the property’s conditional‑use permit (CUP) and the city nuisance ordinance.

City Attorney Damien Toven told the council he had sent a letter to Milaca Park LLC and to tenant Randy Reiman describing alleged noncompliance, chiefly the number and condition of vehicles on the property. Toven said counsel for Milaca Park told him the owner would take corrective action and that the owner and tenant signed a 60‑day written extension to Jan. 25, 2025 to allow time to address the violations.

Toven asked the council to take no action that evening and to allow the extension to run. "If they don't get in compliance or do anything, then the city council can deny the lot split, deny the variance and I can prosecute everybody," he said.

Councilor Ken Muller moved to table the variance and minor lot‑split; Councilor Norris Johnson seconded and the motion passed unanimously. No formal denial or enforcement action was taken at the meeting; the matter will return to council in January if compliance is not achieved.

The tabling preserves the council’s authority to deny the applications if the city finds continued noncompliance after the extension period.