Laserfiche WebLink
in su.-h a way as to obstr,- t any portion of the dedicated <br />roadway which is being used for public travel. The owner�f <br />the underlying fee title, however., has the right to use that <br />portion of the .iedicated public right of way not being used by <br />the '.ty as long as that use is compatible with the use by the <br />pub:,c. Town of Kin burst v. International Lumber Co., 174 <br />Minn. 305-,—M9 N.W. 172, - 1 (1928). <br />The chief factual issue thus becomes whether the <br />proposed dock is coi-vitible with the public's use of Ferndale <br />Roa." The opir;ions of t'..e City Engineer anc 'ublic Works <br />Coo. '=nator should be sought regarding the i iipact such a dock <br />wotl a upon the safe use of the road. Should the dock <br />caul .aty risk- or otter interferences •pith the use if the <br />road, .--e Council could legitimately deny the request•.:4 <br />permit. Moreover, even if the permit is granted, the City <br />should require certain safety precautions and that the <br />applics,+: holl the City harmless from any causes of actionr <br />that miy;. arise from accidents involving the dock. <br />As with any action, the City should be concerned with <br />the precedential value of its decision. At the same time, <br />however, when dealing wi:.h parcels of land, which are unique <br />unto themselves, the precedent set by any one decision, is <br />limited to the facts of the situation. Each case must be <br />examined on iti own merits, with the following being considered: <br />1. Title histor- <br />2 Platting histc <br />?. Physical (-haracteristics of the property; <br />4. Taxing records; <br />5. �i^ :et:y issues; <br />6. rference with ,se of )ublic property; and, <br />7. .cugth of the clock . <br />At best, future r-quests For cons, ruction of docks in <br />dedicated but unused public right -,f ways could be supported on <br />the grounds of precedent only if the facts %,re substantially <br />similar to those involved in this particular latter. <br />II. Compliance with regulations of LM 'o and City <br />ordinances. <br />The proposed dock would F to comply with the <br />regulations of the LACD and the C Zoning Code. Pursi.an. to <br />- 2- <br />