My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#2063 Attempted Vacation on Crystal Bay Road
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Bayside Road
>
3775 Bayside Road - 05-117-23-24-0111
>
Land Use
>
95-2063, VAR
>
#2063 Attempted Vacation on Crystal Bay Road
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2025 10:22:29 AM
Creation date
10/16/2025 10:22:09 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
STATE OF <br />~~~~©u& <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />PHONE NO. <br />VI Trails and Waterways, 1200 Warner Road,--St--:-Paul, MN 55106 <br />772-7 935 \\.',', FILE NO. <br />November 9, 1993 <br />Mr. Mike Gaffron <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 <br />Dear Mr. Gaffron: <br />Please be advised, that after further review of the proposed road vacation of <br />the right-of-way described as Hillside Place located between 3345 and 3339 <br />Crystal Bay Road, the Department of Natural Resources still opposes it. A <br />vacation of a public street must be in the public's best interest. According <br />to the Minnesota Supreme Court, in the Baldwin case, "And where, as here it is <br />proposed to vacate a street which is located upon a lake shore, the matter <br />should receive "our most careful consideration ... the final test is whether <br />the public interest will or will not be best served by discontinuing the way." <br />The Baldwin case further goes on to state, " ... yet the state, though not a <br />party to nor represented in the proceedings, has real and substantial rights <br />to protect ... " It is therefore, the Department's position that we are <br />protecting and preserving the rights of the public for whatever present,or <br />future use this right-of-way may hold. <br />The question of another street, closer by, being used as an access, is <br />irrelevant. In Krebs vs. Northern they address that specifically, "It is no <br />answer that Second street is better adapted for development or that it would <br />afford more convenient access to the present public desireing to go to the <br />lake ... the question for consideration here is whether First street is useless, <br />not whether some other street is more useful, for the purpose for which it was <br />laid out.'' This case also indicates that it is irrelevant as to whether the <br />current road has been used on a regular basis <br />In our opinion there is no evidence showing that this right-of-way holds no <br />potential future use. There is evidence in effect that in the future there <br />may be a greater need for use of the street than now exists. Most of the <br />lakeshore lots in the vicinity, and around Lake Minnetonka, have been sold to <br />private individuals, and are being used. Fifty years ago who would have known <br />about the invention of the snowmobile, and how important access for that is. <br />Who knows what will be in place fifty years from now. <br />In closing, a closer look at the dedication in the Wallace's addition plat <br />makes it appear that the City does not have jurisdiction to vacate this right- <br />of-way since it is not a City street, but instead the road was given in fee to <br />the plat owners in common {see enclosured). <br />AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.