|
s „ + i , '', •',',, r %.,1,,;', ,' i p1f 1 r 5a y} gf ,, + .5
<br /> ' � ris 1 t ��_
<br /> 1 hr ,. .4� 1-1*.yr .-i t ,;t.,.4,,:4,,,-.4,:,, ',✓ ` n .;3, ,,v,,, ,. 2
<br /> 1 q
<br /> i
<br /> f { I qtn , •J , -
<br /> it + f
<br /> a a - - ` .' t
<br /> r` 7
<br /> „�§� r �).7 �i 1r i rel fat '
<br /> i s '4,',' t P.'
<br /> $1
<br /> v i k Y-','',: . � i., ar
<br /> fr 7 • 31 r > +�.
<br /> ;\"4,:-..,:1;-,1. •1 ,I '. , •,d d 1 e
<br /> 'l9 W. l� ' 7 ! •f, z , t� ' 5 .i i1 , z44
<br /> J i
<br /> 14, re' t rK }{ :f..,t `,C—,. a a r •W .f � a+.
<br /> �F�1
<br /> + •• t
<br /> '41 4
<br /> ;3f r i .
<br /> i � fl tl� 4 4.
<br /> It ti b%, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ' ,,
<br /> ‘<',';''S„';,
<br /> y ,I. '5;'114'' }SIn Re: Application of Michael Revier b',
<br /> nvs 1 ,, r ..,,`, MEMOR/.NDIIM ,:
<br /> •r`
<br /> t In the above referenced case, the owner of the property adjacent to the
<br /> 'nr v is °,�, l' s",.
<br /> applicant's parcel to the north, Mr. David Runkle, objected to the granting of the
<br /> d
<br /> < '$'
<br /> variance for a number or reasons. The board has chosen to address two of these 1
<br /> "• issues in this memorandum, The first of these arguments raised by Mr. Runkle is „�;
<br /> 1
<br /> ' ,
<br /> i ,
<br /> '‘' that the applicant does not have the legal right to construct the docks over the ,,-,
<br /> extended lot line between the Revier and the Runkle properties on land which is ,
<br /> under water below the ordinary high water mark.
<br /> Although land between the ordinary high water mark(OHWM)and the ordinary 'i t
<br /> low water mark (OLWM) may be privately owned, the board is not aware that the y0
<br /> ,
<br /> OLWM has ever been determined for Lake Minnetonka. Without such a determination, q;
<br /> k , ASS.
<br /> it woulu.,tet be possible to evaluate the merits of Mr. Runkle's claim because the.land -.
<br /> below the OLWM is owned by the state of Minnesota and cannot be privately owned.
<br /> Moreover, the between the OHWM and OLWM, the use of private property is subject it
<br /> 5
<br /> to reasonable regulation by public authority. Whether allocating lake access among `� y
<br /> riparian owners may constitute such reasonable regulation has not been determined.4
<br /> !
<br /> d { In any case, the board must decline to decide the case on the basis of this claim for
<br /> --' t iii
<br /> if ' both legal and practical reasons. Legally, the board has no authority to adjudicate ,.;
<br /> -,fir'
<br /> 1 1( `• ,
<br /> adverse claims to real property. Because the board has no legal authority, it would F
<br /> 4
<br /> ''' i'• make little sense as a practical matter for the board to attempt to decide the issue on ft
<br /> : '; • t i the basis' of its opinion about real property interests of the parties. Any decision ,..'1',
<br /> ti,i ' `.1 ",4 'i ''',' made on the basis of the board's findings on real property interests would properly ' ..y
<br /> `, 'r int be subject to challenge by either of the parties, and the board would be placed in the
<br /> r,, ''' r�,I;r i4 {fir' ° 1
<br /> 4,lt� F f51 ri `t : position of attempting to defend private real property rights of one citizen against r
<br /> 4'
<br /> ,r the adverse claims of another. `
<br /> d Yj
<br /> ,, r ,r, ;
<br /> 1 :11
<br /> }' crs,csrso `f
<br /> t.,ul0-4 7li '
<br /> 4*
<br /> ,a -.peye . S -�� �':,' I�G.: �ygpr 4+' .,xd g:14'''
<br />
|