Fines rescinded, Petsinger battles with Metronet

The city of Ellendale rescinded its fines for un-mowed grass on the five lots owned by Daniel Petsinger. A unanimous decision was made after Petsinger mowed the lawns at the locations. The decision occurred during their regular meeting on August 8, 2024.

 

A public hearing regarding a 360-degree camera mounted to a roughly 25-foot tower/structure owned by Petsinger, located on one of the aforementioned lots, was cut short after Petsinger reminded the council he did not receive a letter informing him of the hearing.

 

Petsinger is currently a defendant in a civil case with Jaguar Communications (Metronet) regarding a building on the lot located on Lageson Court.

 

Steele County court documents list Jaguar Communications LLC as the plaintiff and Daniel Petsinger as the defendant in a case set to go to trial in the coming months.

 

The complaint states that Petsinger purchased land in 2017 and did not, until January 2024, claim Jaguar was trespassing on the property. After which, Petsinger “erected several ‘no trespassing’ signs on the property and affixed one to the door of the building, preventing Jaguar from entering.”

 

The complaint continues: “Defendant’s actions violate the Grant of Easement… Defendant’s wrongful actions have put thousands of Jaguar’s customers at risk of network outages, thereby causing irreparable harm to Jaguar.

 

“Jaguar has asserted claims against Defendant for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, private nuisance, and temporary and permanent Injunction,” the complaint states.

 

“In 2008, Plaintiff Jaguar Communications, LLC, d/b/a MetroNet Holdings, LLC. (“Jaguar”) purchased a Grant of Easement to build and maintain a structure on a plot of land in Steele County in connection with its telecommunications business. Jaguar has continuously utilized the easement since this time. The structure Jaguar built, in which it houses telecommunications equipment, is essential to providing its customers with high-speed internet services.”

 

Petsinger’s defense is that the easement is not valid or legal. Petsinger claims the easement was made between the former property owner and Jaguar after the property had been forfeited back to Steele County, therefore making the easement illegal.

 

He says the tower is there to surveil the building and stated, if the previous trail camera had not been destroyed, he would not have erected the large tower and camera which is now causing waves with neighbors.

 

The outcome of this court case will be reported at a later date when information is made public.

 

During the public comment portion of the August 8 council meeting, residents were reminded they had four minutes to speak, and nearly everyone who spoke talked about the lawn mowing violations and the tower located on the lots owned by Petsinger.

 

Cynthia Nelson said she fears the cameras capture video of confidential meetings located in nearby buildings. If so, this would violate federal privacy rights, she stated. She asked Petsinger the distance the camera can view, to which Petsinger declined to answer.

 

Joel Meyer, the neighbor who allegedly destroyed the previous trail camera located on the same property, voiced his concerns with Petsinger.

 

“The structure can’t be there,” Meyer said. “Every time you come to the meeting, they carry on and buy themselves another month…”

 

Meyer referenced numerous trespassing notices he’s been issued, along with another one issued to a surveyor hired to locate property lines. 

 

“Let’s get this in court and get it over with,” Meyer said. “That’s where it’s going to go.”

 

“I have a right to protect my property,” Petsinger said during his time to speak. “I would expect the city to respect my rights to protect my property.”

 

Keith Haskell, a Mankato area resident, stated, “Originally, there were just trail cameras there. Until Joel Meyer tore it down. That’s why it is different now. He’s (Joel) never contested that in here.”

 

Petsinger also pointed out that per the law, the structure holding his camera does not meet the legal requirements of a “tower.” 

 

Charlie Berg, a local resident, summarized his perspective from what he’s observed the past four months.

 

“This is getting ridiculous and needs to come to an end,” Berg stated. ‘It’s limiting what we can do with tax funds. It’s a burden. It’s going to end up on everyone in town that pays taxes. Something has to happen and I’m not sure what.

 

“Petsinger has a right to have a camera up to surveil his property,” Berg continued. “If it's more than his property, that's a violation of everyone else's privacy in that area. It’s hard. The only one who can see what he's watching is him. Nobody else gets to see what he’s seeing.

“That’s one of the issues. I have no issue with surveilling his property.”

 

Berg questioned the new ordinances that came out in 2021-22 and said the tower may be in violation of that. Petsinger has raised concerns with council member Jon Asplund’s tower.

 

“I’ve lived in that neighborhood since the spring of 2020 and that tower(owned by Asplund) has been up since I’ve lived there,” Berg continued. “Whatever his(Petsinger’s) issue is with (Asplund’s) tower should be dropped. That was before the council changed the ordinance.”

The council later stated that, because the council member's tower was up before the new ordinance, it was not in violation.

 

Berg also talked about the case between Petsinger and Metronet. “That’s a civil process…” Berg said. “The city is right by not commenting on that civil issue. It’s not a city issue.”

A public hearing with Petsinger to discuss a fine for the tower will occur August 28 at 6:30 p.m.