Encroachment Agreement- June 2007

Home Browse Search

Issue Permanent Easement Sale 3.E�sting Lake Access A permanent easement for docking purposes would be If the most westerly lakeshore parcel is sold to its opposite The existing winter lake �'itten so as to allow the existing lake access point to owner,the City should consider the options of either access point used by the continue to be used in the future. relocating the access point or retain a portion of the right-of- public appears to be partly An alternative would be to relocate that access point further �'ay(or at least an easement)to allow its continued use. located in the westerly of west as an extension of the north-south leg of Crystal Bay the 4 City lakeshore lots. Road that extends to the lake(66' wide). This may require This needs to be confirmed. some tree removals and regading of the lakeshore. 4.Utility Needs Granting of a permanent easement for dock purposes would Pending confirmation in the field, it appears that all existing be written in such a way so as to not allow interference utility lines would be within the resultant right-of-way after with existing utility lines above or below ground. City vacation&dedication. water and MCES sewer lines are underneath the paved portion of the existing road according to City as-built plans, so no additional City utility corridors are needed. 5.Rights and The City retains ownership of the parcels.A permanent The City would no longer own the parcels. Our assumption is Responsibilities of easement or `deeded lake access' would allow the opposite that the County would not allow a combination of taac parcels Opposite Owners owners to erect a dock subject to the terms of the easement; across a dedicated right-of-way. As part of a sale to the the City could place restrictions on that easement at the opposite owners,the City would require execution of a Special time it is granted if it chose to do so. Those restrictions Lot Combination Agreement that would disallow the sale of might include,for instance,how much of the land(above the lake parcel separately from the non-lakeshore homestead the 929.4 OHW)could be covered by dock,walkways, etc. parcel across from it. However,the number of slips extending from that dock The opposite owners would then�iave the same rights and would still be regulated by the LMCD. The easement responsibilities as others who own the lakeshore in front of could be written to require some defined level of their homes, subject to City road right-of-way limitations, and maintenance to be performed by the opposite owner,such subject to LMCD dock rules. City may want to retain as erosion control,as the paved road is at some locations easements to the water's edge to allow City maintenance of less than 15' from the water's edge. the shoreline if not done by the owners,to preserve the road. 6.Rights of Others City would retain ownership. The easement would grant City transfer of property would be via quit-claim deed, docking rights to the 4 opposite owners without affecting because that is how the City acquired it. This means that all the potential rights of off-lake"bathing and boating rights" the potential off-lake"bathing and boating rights"easement easement holders,who would claim those rights against the holders still might claim their rights,but would be claiming City. With an easement the grantee(opposite owner)is them against the 4 owners,not against the City. City would less likely to have to deal with claims by the unknown off- still maintain that no off-lake owners have the right to erect a lake"bathing&boating rights"easement holders. City dock based on `no accessory use/structure without principal would still maintain that no off-lake owners have the right use/structure' coupled with the definition of accessory use as to erect a dock based on `no accessory use/structure being `subordinate to the principal use'. without principal use/structure' coupled with the definition of accessory use as being `subordinate to the principal use'.