01-10-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT In Re: Application of Michael Revier MEMORANDUM In the above referenced case, the owner of the property adjacent to the applicant’s parcel to the north, Mr. David Rxmkle, objected to the granUng of the variance for a number of reasons. The board has chosen to address two of those issues In this memorandum. The first of these arguments raised by Mr. Runkle is that the applicant does not have the legal right to construct the docks over the extended lot Une between the Revier and the Runkle properUes on land which is under water below the ordinary high water mark. Although land between the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and the ordinary low water mark (OLWM) may be privately owned, the board is not aware that the OL..-M has ever been determined for Lake Minnetonka. Without such a dcterminaUoo, it would not be possible to evaluate the merits of Mr. Runkle's claim because the land below the OLWM is owned by the state of Minnesota and cannot be privately owned. Moreover, tht between the OHWM and OLWM, the use of private property is subject to reasonable regulation by pubUc authority. Whether aUocating lake access among riparian owners may constitute such reasonable regulaUon has not been determined. In any case, the board must decUne to decide the case on the basis of this claim for both legal and practical reasons. Legally, the board has no authority to adjudicate adverse claims to real property. Because the board has no legal authority, it would make Uttle sense as a practical matter tor the board to attempt to decide the issue on the basU of its opinion about real property interests of the parties. Any decision made on the basis of the board's findings on real property interests would properly be subject to challenge by either of the parties, and the board would be placed in the position of attempting to defend private real property rights of one citizen agains the adverse claims of another. 0X63160 LXllO-4