Got this from the mayor. I told her she’d be a fool to not grandfather him in…
Dear “Archie’s Friends”,
As Mayor of Victoria, I appreciate the time and concern that you all took to send me your thoughts about “Archie’s Landing” on Schutz Lake located in Victoria, MN. I am sorry that I am close to a week late in responding to all of you, but I have been out of town. Although I carried my IPAD, I wanted to respond from my home office after reading and giving serious consideration to all of your thoughts and suggestions. I have also asked Victoria’s City clerk to forward your thoughts to other Council members, if you asked me to do that. Because of Open Meeting Laws, I am not at liberty to forward the emails myself.
Tomorrow night, Monday, July 9, at Victoria’s City Council meeting, which begins at 6:30 PM, the City Council will consider granting Archie’s family a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to enable Archie to re-open his “landing”. Victoria’s Planning Commission has recommended to the Council that we grant a CUP, and they have agreed with staff findings of approving the CUP with certain conditions, such as hours and number of vehicles permitted etc.
Those are the “facts”. Here are my personal thoughts, in one email addressed to all who have contacted me, in response to your suggestions and comments. Some of the below I will be sharing with the public at the Council meeting.
1. As some of you mentioned, I too am embarrassed and distressed that this situation could not be resolved at the neighborhood level. This is particularly unfortunate because the family involved with the landing has apparently been operating the landing since 1933. Unfortunately, when residents chose to involve the City’s governing unit, we must act according to what our ordinances seem to dictate. I will be questioning Victoria’s City attorney as to whether Archie’s is truly a businesses or as some of you have alleged, Archie and his family have simply opened their landing as a public service, to people that they know, including many of the current Schutz Lake residents – – – who, because of topography, have no actual access to the Lake on which they live. I also will be asking the City Attorney about the possibility of “grandfathering in” Archie’s Landing without a fee (see 3. below).
2. Some of you have suggested that the controversy is simply a ploy to keep Schutz Lake “private”. I cannot speak for the complainants as to whether or not this is one of their intentions. From comments I have reviewed, the complainants appear to have some legitimate concerns. What I am concerned about is that the CUP does not, and legally, cannot, address some of their concerns, which could lead to further discourse. Furthermore, I am concerned that some of the conditions attached to the CUP may be difficult to enforce. Once again, I believe that many of the complaints could have been resolved at the neighborhood level.
3. I understand that funds have been donated to help Archie and his family pay for the CUP. I do not know how much has been donated but I have asked for the tally – if anyone has an accurate tally. Once again, I am embarrassed. Please understand that the City does incur certain costs whenever a permit is issued and certainly, there are attorney and other costs when there is controversy. For a variety of reasons, and in this case, I don’t personally support a fee and certainly do not support payment for anything beyond the $500 CUP application fee. However, I will also be asking our City Attorney to comment on the “setting of precedent” should the Council decide to waive any portion of the fee and/or incidental costs.
4. Some of you commented that you believe that “the City” is “out to get Archie”. From reading the Star Tribune’s July 3, 2012 article, it certainly appears that way. However, “the City” and the body of the City Council, is only taking action because we have been brought into what I will continue to allege is a neighborhood situation. Government action sometimes takes place as a response, in this case, to a complaint. In this case, the “government” is charged with enforcing – – – an ordinance. Whether or not an ordinance is being violated is a question I have for our City Attorney.
Finally, I am sorry to hear that some of the writer’s of emails to me have stated that we don’t take seriously that Victoria is a “City of Lakes and Parks” and that some of you will chose to do business elsewhere because of the Archie controversy. We are very proud of our City, which encompasses all or a portion of 13 lakes and 23 parks (for over 2,000 acres). We have dedicated substantial dollars to our parks and trails for all people who live and visit Victoria to use. Schutz Lake is one of the lakes that I hope will continue to be an attraction to visitors. It is pristine and I hear good fishing can be found! Regarding doing business in Victoria, our businesses have worked very hard to be a place where you, your family and friends, can shop and enjoy. To penalize Victoria’s businesses because of this issue is sad – – – I hope you will rethink this and continue to patronize our businesses and also, enjoy our lakes and parks.
Thank you, again, for your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Mary Hershberger Thun, Mayor
City of Victoria