Laserfiche WebLink
...�; . ;. : <br /> :� �•' , � . <br /> � � " �, <br /> '� `� ��� <br /> h d ��.�.. <br /> � ��y <br /> S���T"�i�t��' 4 / <br /> ;+. .�,� ��' P. 3 <br /> ;�;� <br /> It can be without question that the property was sold by <br /> ��;:; said Winkler to the defendants Harren with the assurance and <br /> � understanding that there would be access to Lake Minnetonka <br /> and the right to build a dock. That this would have to be <br /> in compliance with the ordinances , rules and regulations of <br /> the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District which are not <br /> unreasonable . � <br /> Thus , the only interpretation whzch may be given is that <br /> the defendants Harren are permitted to construct a dock <br /> which would abut the extension of the north boundary line, if <br /> extended into the lake, of the abovesaid easement. That said <br /> dock cannot protrude in any way into the 10-foot setback area. <br /> That the defendants Harren are entitled to cross the property <br /> of the plaintiffs to go from their land easement to their <br /> dock. <br /> ORDER: _ <br /> That the notion for summary judment of the plaintiffs <br /> is hereby denied. That the motion of the defendant Lake <br /> M.i.nnetonk� ronsAr_v�tion District i� her�by granted, and that <br /> the defendants Harren must remove that portion of their dock <br /> which protrudes into the 10-foot setback area. <br /> That the defendants Harren are hereby allowed to con- <br /> struct a dock which would abut the extension of the north <br /> boundary line of the 10-foot easement into Lake Minnetonka <br /> and have reasonable crossing access of the plaintiffs ' land <br />