10-27-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Crystal Bay Road Lots J0/16/0J Update Page 2 City ownership came about in 1933-34 via two quit-claim deeds in favor of Orono Township, which were officially accepted by the Township Board of Supervisors on December 1, 1934. We have found no records which indicate why the parcels were deeded to the City. However, we must assume the Township Board knew of the potential “bathing and boating ” rights which affected the parcels. Perhaps the Township was viewed as the logical overseer of property that could potentially be used by many members of the public. Maps and Surveys. The earliest survey we have showing the relationship of the traveled road and the platted right-of-w ay dates to 1945. Other surveys and County plat maps since then have not been consistent in recogmzing the traveled road or the platted right-of way. However, County plat maps for at least the last 40 years have shown the City parcels as separately owned from the inland portions of the 4 original lots. Interpreting ••bathing and boating rights^. During the 1970’s, 80 ’s and into the early 90’s a number of properties in the Navarre area were sold with the right for “bathing and boating ” on the City parcels appearing in the deeds. As lake access became dearer, the City more and more often was queried by new Navarre area owners as to ‘Vhere can I put my dock, my deed says 1 have bathing and boating rights...” By the mid 1990’s the City had firmly established via ordinance tested in the courts that only properties with principal structures could have docks. Our standard response to inquiries became “ you can swim or fish or launch a canoe at the City parcels but you can’t have a dock ”. 1995 Research. In 1995 the City Attorney was asked to review whether or to what extent the off- lake owners in the Navarre area actually have rights to use the 4 City parcels. It was determined that in general, the dozens of inland properties that might claim the easement right are subject to the Marketable Title Act which would generally bar any claims by the inland lot owners for private bathing and boating rights, unless a claim on behalf of an inland property attempting to preserve the easement rights had been filed within 40 years of the original 1911 deed. This likely reduces the actual number of legitimate easement holders, and we are so far unaware of any such notice having been filed. However, the City has not fully researched the titles to all the properties involved to determine whether such claims have been filed in the past. The second question asked was whether the 4 adjacent landowners on Crystal Bay Road would have the ability to establish a prescriptive easement over the City parcels by virtue of their continued use of the parcels. It was concluded that in general, land owned by the City cannot be acquired by an occupant inerely by reason of occupation per Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 541.01. The only exception might be if the City has taken an affirmative action to abandon its interests in the property. However, we are unaware of any such affirmative action, and the fact that the City prior to 2002 has not attempted to have the seasonal docks removed would not constitute an abandonment action. In a 1996 followup letter from the City Attorney’s office, it was noted substantial title review of the 4 City parcels as well as all the potentially benefitted lots would be needed in order to determine to what extent easement rights are in effect. Even if title work concluded that rights have been terminated, it would likely require a quiet title or registration action to adjudicate same. This could prove to be an expensive process. It should be noted that 3415 Crystal Bay Road, one of the 4 lots across from the dock lots, was sold in 1999 with the “bathing and boating” right appearing on the deed