Laserfiche WebLink
^ I <br />’(Xfse- <br />i i <br />5ha\;er jTearse <br />in such a way as to obstruct any portion of the dedicated <br />roadway which is being used for public travel. The owner of <br />the underlying fee title, however, has the right to use that <br />portion of the dedicated public right of way not being used by <br />the City as long as that use is compatible with the use by the <br />public. Town of Kinghurst v. International Lumber Co., 174 <br />Minn. 305, 219 N.W. 172, 173-174 (1928). <br />The chief factual issue thus becomes whether the <br />proposed dock is compatible with the public's use of Ferndale <br />Road. The opinions of the City Engineer and Public Works <br />Coordinator should be sought regarding the impact such a dock <br />would have upon the safe use of the road. Should the dock <br />*-ause safety risks or other interferences with the use of the <br />road, the Council could legitimately deny the requested <br />permit. Moreover, even if the permit is granted, the City <br />should require certain safety precautions and that the <br />applicant hold the City harmless from any causes of actions <br />that might arise from accidents involving the dock. <br />As with any action, the City should be concerned with <br />the precedential value of its decision. At the same time, <br />however, when dealing with parcels of land, which are unique <br />unto themselves, the precedent set by any one decision is <br />limited to the facts of the si;uation. Each case must be <br />examined on its own merits, wi :h the following being considered; <br />1.Title history; <br />2.Platting history; <br />• <br />3.Physical characteristics of the property; <br />4.Taxing records; <br />5.Public safety issues; <br />6.Interference with use of public property; and. <br />7.Length of the dock. <br />At best, future requests for construction of docks in <br />dedicated but unused public right of ways could be supported on <br />the grounds of precedent only if the facts were substantially <br />similar to those involved in this particular matter. <br />II. Compliance with regulations of LMCD and City <br />Ordinances. <br />The proposed dock would have to comply with the <br />regulations of the LMCD and the City Zoning Code, Pursuant to <br />-2-