09-11-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I DSON HNSON, PA 217 West James Street P.O. Box 241 Paynesville, Minnesota 56362 320-243-3878 320-243-4956 [Fax] legalsrv�&,amundsonlaw cam wwwamundsonlaw com Attorneys: Ross M. Amundson David T. Johnson Paralegals: Sheri L. Blonigen Edith K. Buermann Debra K. Stanger particularly the disruption that such a project would have on Mr. and Mrs. White. He also sets forth the difficulty emergency vehicles may encounter in attempting to respond to an emergency at these locations. The sketch drawing shows that turning emergency vehicles around may not be possible on an 8 foot road with no specified turnaround. Although Mr. Gaffron appears to identify the access area behind White's residence as an easement in the Memo, he has referred to this easement area as a public right of way orally. To White's knowledge, this easement area has never been dedicated to the public and remains private property. Mr. Gaffron sets forth the obvious challenges in providing access to these lots, but the Whites could also make a legal claim that the scope of the easement is being enlarged. "The language of the deed expresses the final, binding agreement between the grantor and grantee. Hubachek v. Brown, 126 Minn. 359, 362-63, 148 N.W. 121, 122 (1914)... The scope of an easement created by express grant depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of the grant. Highway 7 Embers, Inc. v. Northwestern National Bank, 256 N.W.2d 271, 275 ('Minn. 1977). The extent of an easement should not be enlarged by legal construction beyond the objects originally contemplated or expressly agreed upon by the parties. Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohier, 287 Minn. 254, 258, 177 N.W.2d 786, 789-90 (1970)." Additional discovery would need to be made concerning the intent of the original easement, but the developer needs to know that Whites are prepared to apply for an injunction against a two lot development in the event a suitable compromise cannot be .. reached. It should be noted in this regard that White's lot is non- conforming to the setback requirements. It tliust be researched, but allowing White's home to be built so close to the boundary line indicates that it was unforeseen that a neighbor would build on the adjacent lot. 2) Encroachments. As set forth in the ,Memo prepared by Mr. Gaffron, the Whites' deck, driveway, and septic system appear to encroach onto the adjacent lot proposed for re -development. There is also a gas line and a water main servicing White's home that encroach onto the subject property. Again, Mr. and Mrs. White have attempted to communicate these issues with Mr. Frethem but there has been very little response.