Re: Easement rights/dock,etc - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

byl l vi viwsw v�LTI.,+vlly t vv/LI/ /V 1V.J! LJ' .vv/ Iv 17v. 17J � . Thus, building a boat dock without a primary structure on the property would not be permitted by the code . This construction explains the denial of respondents ' first dock proposal . At issue in this appeal is respondents ' shared dock proposal . The code makes it "unlawful for any person to engage or participate in business use or joint use without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. " Id„ § 5 .42 , subd. 2 . The code defines "joint use" as "more than two persons joining for the purpose of using lakeshore property for swimming, bathing, fishing, docking or mooring boats, or for any other purpose . " Id„ subd. 1F. In this case, Tillotson and respondents wished to use the same piece of property for docking boats . In addition, the code indicates that "private" docks are a permissible accessory use. The use of the dock by both Tillotson and respondents did not seemingly transform it into a business use, but the proposal did not call for a purely private dock for the Tillotson home . The definition of "use-accessory" provides that it is a use "exclusively used for purposes incidental to those of the principal use. " J.�_,_, § 10 . 02, subd. 72 . In this case, the principal use, the house, was Tillotson' s . The accessory use, the dock, was respondents ' . The use of the dock by respondents would not have been incidental to Tillotson' s use of his house and the dock would not have been exclusively used for purposes incidental to the house. Read together, these provisions did not permit respondents ' shared dock proposal . Next, we consider whether respondents were entitled to 'a -7-