Laserfiche WebLink
� �4RL� H. ��4�I�E V��TE, �'.�. <br /> ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW <br /> 12800 fNDUSTRIAL PARJ< BLVD. <br /> SUITE 21O <br /> PLYMOUTH, MN 55441-3929 <br /> PHONE: 952-475-2219 <br /> FAX: 763-450-1 555 <br /> EMAIL• vande74C�eahhliNc.net <br /> Apri19, 2010 � <br /> Evelyn Turner <br /> City Planner <br /> City of Orono <br /> 2750 Kelley Parlcway <br /> Crystal Bay,IvIN 55323 <br /> RE: Encroachment Permit for 3508 Ivy Lane � <br /> Dear Ms. Turner: - <br /> Please allow me to introduce myself as attorney for Stephen B.Wilson,one of the fee owners <br /> of the above-captioned property. I do not represent Pamela Wilson as the parties are pending <br /> dissolution of their marriage and she is separ•ately represented. However, I am confident that her <br /> counsel,Mr. Brian Sobol, is in complete agreement with Mr. Wilson's position on this matter. <br /> I am responding,on my client's behalf,to the e-mail that you provided to Paul Larson on April <br /> 8, 20'10 [copy attached]. In that regard I am uncertain as to what has occuired respecting an <br /> "encroachment permit" but I can advise that the law of city rights of way ordinarily does not <br /> contemplate the need for city permission to make improvements upon rights of way that are in <br /> disuse. <br /> It is a commonly held misconception that the city owns title to a platted right of way. It does <br /> not.The Minnesota courts have consistently held that"...any abutting landownerowns to the middle <br /> of the platted street or alley and that the soil and appurtenances, within the limits of such street or <br /> alley, belong to the owner in fee, subject only to the right of the public to use or remove the same <br /> for the purpose of improvement." Kochevar v. Citv of Gilbert, 273 Minn. 274, 141 N.W.2d 24 <br /> (1966); see also Foote v. Citv of CrosbX, 306 N.W.2d 883 (Minn. 1981) and Pederson v. City of <br /> Rushford, 146 Minn. 133, 177 N.W. 943 (1920). � <br /> Ivlinnesota case law,then,grants the abutting property owner fee title to rights of way to their <br /> centerline and,limited only by the city's prior right of usage,may make improvements upon them. <br /> To the extent that such improvements impede the public use,such as where a retaining wall is placed <br /> in an area where the public actually travels,the city may demand removal. Otherwise, it cannot. <br /> R�CEIV�D <br /> MAY 19 2C��1 <br /> Board Certified as a Civil Trial S iali <br /> by the Minnesota State L'ar Ass ti C�.�.Y QF �R�ND <br /> �:.. ; � <br /> �, <br />