HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: Complaint - excessive size/dock-canopy ' DATE TIME
CITY OF ORONO CALLED IN _
INSPECTION NOTICE SCHEDULED
PERMITNO. COMPLETED ' �"`� +�
ADDRESS � 8�� �-�'�IS��C-
OWNER ���`� � S CONTR.
TELEPHONE NO._��� 't 71� Tl t-- � '���'-`�Z--
� DESCRIPTION
LL 01 FOOTING 11 MECHANICAL RI 16 WELLTEST PUMP
� 02 FRAMING 11 MECHANICAL FINAL 18 EXCAV/GRADING/FILLING
h
03 INSULATION 24125 WOOD BURNER/FIREPLACE 19 LAKESHORE/WETLANDS
� 04 WALL BD. 12 WATER HOOK-UP 3 REE REMOVAL
Z
Q 05 FINAL 13 METER SETITURN ON 1�E INSPECTION
� 07 DEMO—SITE 14 SEWER HOOK-UP O6 PROGRESS
J 07 DEMO—FINAL 27 SEPTIC MAINT. 21 PLAINT
W 09 PLUMBING RI 15 SEPTIC INSTALL. 22 FOLLOW-UP
= 10 PLUMBING FINAL 23 SEPTIC FINAL
J
Q OWNERICONTRACTOR TO MEET YOU: ES_NO
y COMMENTS: ���� � ��`� � �CC-�SIU�
a s �4��
o C-(�Z�� vJ i TJ-f ��2cGl-f�'Z-,�
�
a
�
° �� G�--t'��t-�
�, �--
� -- �'��.�-v'�r' C�����"�
Q
� -� ��L'.�," /l%"�-'i��
z
W
�
W
�
�
d ❑WORK SATISFACTORY:PROCEED _ PROJECT COMPLETE
W
� t] CORRECT WORK 8 PROCEED _ ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
W
O Ll CORRECT WORK,CALL FOR REINSPECTION TEMPORARY
� BEFORECOVERING PERMANENT
❑CORRECTUNSAFECONDITIONWITHIN HOURS. ,` pHOTOTAKEN
INSPECTOR WILL RETURN
❑STOP ORDER POSTED.CALL INSPECTOR � CITATION ISSUED
C' INSPECTION REQUIRED.CALLTO ARRANGE ACCESS.
Call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance.473-7357
OwnerlContractor on s�,e.
Inspector. �
White Copyllnspector's File Canary CopylSite Notice
� �� /�'��� 9-��--���
��
'�- �p u.� `�c��`C�T��v� �-����".6�►�P� �� S��n�
/N .S jL�'�C�. 8�� UJ . N o c:-C+ i G-1�"t� S�?�� v�-�'�S
�D�(N � .
i
r--
�� /�� ���
; � ` / C
� �
�
._ _ — — afl�� c.o����c- ,�
�r ��� �
LD c�n o�'� 1 S
N�-r o�v��c�s
�No 2 '���-I�!�
��
, .
' ��i��W._J
� � ; � 019�7
STATE OF MINNESOTA - DISTRICT COURT
' .M.C.D.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN � ��,; �.� FOU,�TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
• �u7 �: 20 r',� 2 u�
David Dianis and Karen Dianis, ),
..:�: . � . . � �,. :,�...i���
Plaintiffs , }
) Case No. MX 87-6525
-vs- )
� FINDINGS OF FACT
Lee C. Harren and Juletta M. � CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .
Harren, and Lake Minnetonka � ORDER
Conservation District, )
i
�
Defeiivants . )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The above-captioned matter came on for hearing before the
undersigned on July 10 , 1987 on motions for summary judgment
by all parties. The plaintiff appearing by C. Scott Massie ,
Esa; the defendants Harren appearing by Carter DeLaittre ,
Esq. ; and the defendant Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
by Charles LeFevre, Esq.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
The plaint�iffs .own certain residential property on the
shore of Lake Minnetonka, more particularly Stubbs Bay.
That 't'�e dGf�?id�r.ts 3arr=n ew- proger'�� adjac�nt and to
the rear of the plaintiffs of which no part is Lake Minne-
tonka shoreline.
That the property of both the plaintiffs and defendants
Harren are residential properties and were purchased from one
Christopher Winkler. Said Winkler was authorized to subdivide
the property into the pieces now owned by the plaintiffs and
the defendants Harren.
��i
..
.
,�,zxr::�,.� �� .
"+i,...�H4 wr.Y . . • .
�
e".'�
z �
, �. . .
°R��o@7 $.,qhF
� F�
�1. F , �
����: T p.
�z.�.,.�.g:: .
:���' �.;.,:,.
���`� "�"� That when the said Winkler sold the lot to the defendants
..,�
-� Harren, he granted a 10-foot easement on the south boundar.y of
r��
�'' the lot now owned by the plaintiffs . This being for access to
Lake Minnetonka.
The deed read in part in the description, "including the
right to construct a dock into the lake adjacent thereto" .
Subsequently, the said Winkler sold• the property subject
to said easement which was of record to the defendants Harren.
That prior to the sale of the properties by said Winkler to
either the plaintiffs or the defendants Harren, the defendant
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District had a duly-promulgated
ordinance of record covering the shore a•rea in question of a
10-foot setback.
That the defendants Harren have constructed a dock which
would abut an extension of the north boundary of the 10-foot
easement, if extended into the lake. That said dock is built
on an angle an� a portion of it protrudes into the defendant
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District' s setback area.
The sole issue and concern between the plaintiffs and
the defendants Harren is the interpretation of the word
"adjacent" in the deed setting forth the easement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The immediate and first interpretation of the term "adja-
cent" would mean an extension of the 10-foot land easement into
the water. In this case, that conclusion cannot be reached,
because the setback ordinance was of record and, thus , of know-
ledge to hoth Winkler and the defendants Harren.
...�; . ;. :
:� �•' , � .
� � " �,
'� `� ���
h d ��.�..
� ��y
S���T"�i�t��' 4 /
;+. .�,� ��' P. 3
;�;�
It can be without question that the property was sold by
��;:; said Winkler to the defendants Harren with the assurance and
� understanding that there would be access to Lake Minnetonka
and the right to build a dock. That this would have to be
in compliance with the ordinances , rules and regulations of
the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District which are not
unreasonable . �
Thus , the only interpretation whzch may be given is that
the defendants Harren are permitted to construct a dock
which would abut the extension of the north boundary line, if
extended into the lake, of the abovesaid easement. That said
dock cannot protrude in any way into the 10-foot setback area.
That the defendants Harren are entitled to cross the property
of the plaintiffs to go from their land easement to their
dock.
ORDER: _
That the notion for summary judment of the plaintiffs
is hereby denied. That the motion of the defendant Lake
M.i.nnetonk� ronsAr_v�tion District i� her�by granted, and that
the defendants Harren must remove that portion of their dock
which protrudes into the 10-foot setback area.
That the defendants Harren are hereby allowed to con-
struct a dock which would abut the extension of the north
boundary line of the 10-foot easement into Lake Minnetonka
and have reasonable crossing access of the plaintiffs ' land
, �.
� .
i+.
p. 4
to reach the dock from the easement of record.
LET SAID ORDER BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
BY THE RT:
Ja s D. Roger u e
Dated thi$=��day of July, 1987.
�