Laserfiche WebLink
T <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of Flynn v. <br />City of Worthington, 224 N.W. 254 (1929) makes a distinction <br />between alleys and streets: <br />Alleys differ from streets. They are not intended <br />to convenience the public in the way that streets do. <br />They are more of a local convenience to the parts of <br />the block which they abut. . . . They are not thought <br />of as a street connecting with other streets and <br />suppll.ng the municipality with a system of connecting <br />highways. An alley is not intended for such purpose. <br />While the public travels it, its use is local to <br />abutting property. A street is intended for general <br />public use and the general public have in it an <br />interest different from that which they have in an <br />alley. Flynn at 254, 255. <br />3) Is the City obligated to maintain the road as a <br />public road because of the use of the 33 feet of public <br />right-of-way? Once property is dedicated to the public and <br />accepted by the public through the municipality, the City may <br />choose its own time to occupy and open the right-of-way. State <br />v. Marcks 36 N.W.2d 594 (1949). Once the City has established a <br />right-of-way, it must maintain it as it would any other <br />dedicated public right-of-way within the City. <br />-.Pe informed this office that the plat containing <br />the dedicot' Ley, "Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka" was filed in <br />the early 2 You stated that the City aad not maintained <br />the 33 feet alley. Also, you mentioned that a private garage <br />may be encroaching a portion of the dedicated alley. <br />Unless the City takes affirmative actions to assert <br />abandonment of a dedicated right-of-way, non-use and <br />obstructions over the right-of-way are insufficient to establish <br />abandonment and public rights cannot be divested without public <br />consent or operation of law. Neill v. Hake, 93 N.� 2d 821 <br />(1958). <br />Although it may not be to the developers benefit, in <br />order for the 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way to become <br />private property, the City must vacate the alley per its <br />procedures as outlined in Orono Municipal Code Section 10.12 and <br />Minnesota Statutes Section 412.851. Upon vacation, the abutting <br />property owners would obtain the vacated alley up to the center <br />line of that former alley. Should the developer to the west own <br />the property abutting the same alley, the developer would obtain <br />an additional 16-1/2 feet to add to his proposed 17 feet of <br />private road. If not, the developer has the right to approach <br />the property owners and offer to purchase the vacated alley for <br />a negotiated price. <br />3379j <br />