Laserfiche WebLink
LINDQUIST & VENNUM p llp.Mr. Kevin W, DeVore <br />August 8, 1997 <br />Page 3 <br />were entitled to have a dock; in the Floyd case, however, there is no platted road 33 feet <br />wide, only the rights granted by Minnesota Statute § 160.05. <br />By contrast the 20 foot parcel on the old Skarp property has virtually <br />insurmountable problems from a practical standpoint with regard to Lake Minnetonka » <br />Conservation District ordinances. The validity of the LMCD setback ordinances has been <br />brought to my attention via a lawsuit by John Goodman against the Village of Minnetonka <br />Beach concerning a municipal dock on a municipal fire lane next to Mr. Goodman's house <br />in Minnetonka Beach. After eighteen months of proceedings before the LMCD, the Village <br />of Minnetonka Beach and the LMCD determined that it was appropriate and lawful that the <br />LMCD's side setback rules did apply even to municipal docks, even though the docks had <br />been in place for decades and long predated the creation of the LMCD. The municipal <br />docks were thereupon obliged to be relocated for 1997, conforming to the LMCD side <br />setback ordinances. Without a doubt the same result will apply to docks on the 20 foot <br />parcel putting its viability for dock use in jeopardy. <br />The totality of the factual data, and the correct legal conclusions to be drawn, is <br />overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that the 50 foot parcel is imminently more usable for a <br />dock than is the 20 foot parcel. Please review the matter and give me your thoughts. <br />Thank you. <br />Very truly yours, <br />LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.L.L.P. <br />EB0I:920054J