Laserfiche WebLink
1 .{ <br />P. 3 <br />It can be without question that the property was sold by <br />said Winkler to the defendants Marren 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 />i <br />unreasonable. <br />Thus, the only interpretation which may be given is that <br />the defendants Harrell 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 />Minnetonke ron"rvation District is hereby 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 Marren 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 />