10-20-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Crjnt^ B«gt M0md Lmm lp4a$t P^2 City ownership came about in 1933-34 via two quit-claim deeds in favor of Orono Tow nship, which were ofTicially accepted by the Township Board of Supcr>isors on December I. 1934. We have found no records which indicate why the parcels were de^ed to the City. Hov^ ever, w e must assume the Towiiship Board knew of the potential “bathing and boating** rights which afTcctcJ the parceU. Perhaps the Township was viewed as the logical overseer of property that could potentially be used by many members of the public. Jl/qps mn4 Surveys. The earliest survey we have showing the relationship of the traveled road and the platted right-oi-w ay dues to 1945. Other surveys and Ccanty plat maps since then have not been consistent in recognizing the traveled road or the platted right-of way. However. Counlv plat maps for at least the last 40 yoars have shown the City parcels as separately owned from'the inland portions of the 4 original lots. interpreting ^hothingondbooting rights^. During the l970*s.S0*sand into the early 9u’s a number of properties m the Navarre area were sold w ith the right for “bathing and boating ’* on the City parcels appeanng in the deeds. As lake access became dearer, the City more and more often was quened by new Navarre area owners as to “where can I put my dock, mv deed sav s I hav e bathing and boating rights...**. By the mid 1990 s the City had firmly established Via ordirunce tested in the courts that only propcnies with principal structures could have docks. Our standard response to inquines became “ you can swim or fish or launch a canoe at the City parcels but vou can ’t have a dock**. tW Rtstarch. In 1995 the City Anoiticy was asked to review whether or to what extent the olT- lake owners in the Navarre area actually have rights to use the 4 Citv patceU. It was determined that in general, the dozens of inland properties that might claim the easement right are subiect to the M^etahle Title Act which would generally bar any claims by the inland lot owners for private bathing and boating nghls. unless a claim on behalf of an inland property attempting to preserve the casement nghts had been filed w ithin 40 years of the original 1911 deed. This likely reduces the a^l num^r of legiiii^tc easment holders, and we are so far unaware of anv such notice having ^ filed Ilovvever. the City has not fully researched the titles to all the properties involved to delemune whether such claims have been filed in the past. ■^e second question uked was whether the 4 adjacent landowncrson Crvstal Bav Road would have the *ility to establish a prewripiive easemeni over the City parcels by viituc of iheir continued use of the parcels It was concluded that in general, land owned by the City cannot be acquired by an occupant merely by reason of occupation pet Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 54 1.01 The onlv exceotion might be if the City has uken an affirmative action to abandon its interesri V-o^ However, we are unawme of any such alTitmative action, and the fact that the Citv prior to ’002 has not attempted to have the seasonal docks removed would not constitute an abandonment action. In a 1996 followup letter fom the City Attorney's ofTice. it was noted substantial title review of the 4 City parcels as w ell as all the potentially benefined lots would be needed in order to determine to what extent easement nghts are in effect Even if title work concluded that rights have bL lerminalri. it would likely require a quiet title or registration aclior. to adjudicate sme This could prove to be an expensive process. It should be noted that 3415 Crystal Bav Road, one of the 41^ ftom the dock lots, was sold in 1999 with the -bathing and boating " riXappeanng on^