Laserfiche WebLink
to use of public waters for dockage to be fully met. <br />2. A Unique Situation. The issue of access to the fee owned, <br />taxed, separately platted and identified, underwater <br />Parcel B makes this situation unique and able to be <br />strictly categorized as non-precedential. Where public <br />right of ways abut or have included within them, the <br />low water elevation of Lake Minnetonka, there will be <br />no private title to which access is required on the lake <br />side of the right of way. If situations occur where <br />private fee title exists within flooded rights of way, <br />or on the lake side of such righ— of way, then each <br />and every case will have to be e,.::mined on its own merits, <br />with careful review and research being made of title <br />histor,, platting, dedication language, and other factors, <br />including, the reasonable expectations of the property <br />owner, before a determination can be made. <br />3. Expectation and Reliance. Prior to the present owner's <br />acquisition of Parcels A and B, Mr. H. H. Tearse, Jr., <br />the principal officer of the present owner, conferred <br />with the officials of the City of Orono with respect <br />to this fact situation and inquired as to the availability <br />of a dock on Parcel B. Mr. Tearse was assured that as <br />far as the :y was concerned, a permit for dock construc- <br />tion would Lj issued, but the LMCD Ordinances would have <br />to be dealt with. See Exhibit 10-A -- Letter from Zoning <br />Administrator. In 1984, not fully understanding the <br />"principal structure" requirement of the City's ordinances, <br />the present owner constructed a dock on a part of Parcel B, <br />including a part which was within the unused and unusable <br />portion of Ferndale Road which was under water, received <br />the letter attached as Exhibit 10-B citing lack of permits <br />and non-compliance with the principal structure require- <br />ment, and immediately removed the dock structure. The <br />obvious implication of the letter is that the construction <br />of a residence on Parcel A would solve the problem. <br />CONCLUSION: <br />Lakeville Elevator Company now has a prospective purchaser <br />for Parcels A and B who wish to construct a principal <br />structure on Parcel A. The purchaser also wishes the <br />Permit to include permission for a dock on Parcel B and <br />- 6 - <br />