My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1994-02-03 Memo, LMCD Justification for Ruling
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
E
>
Ethel Avenue
>
2691 Ethel Avenue - 20-117-23-24-0046
>
Land Use
>
1994-02-03 Memo, LMCD Justification for Ruling
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/6/2025 11:22:57 AM
Creation date
11/6/2025 11:21:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
2691
Street Name
Ethel
Street Type
Avenue
Street Direction
2691 Ethel Avenue
PIN
2011723240046
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• `M <br />LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT <br />In Re: Application of Michael Revier <br />MEMORANDUM <br />In the above referenced case, the owner of the property adjacent to the <br />applicant's parcel to the north, Mr. David Runkle, objected to the granting of the <br />variance for a number of reasons. The board has chosen to address two of these <br />issues in this memorandum. Try first of these arguments raised by Mr. Runkle is <br />that the applicant does noL have the legal right to construct the docks cver the <br />extznded lot line between the Revier and the Runkle properties on land which is <br />under water below the ordinary high water mark. <br />Although land between the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and t: ie ordinary <br />low water mark (OLWM) may be privately owned, the board is not aware that the <br />OLWM has ever been determined for Lake Minnetonka. Without such a determination, <br />it would not be possible to evaluate the merits of Mr. Runkle's claim beeiiuse the land <br />below the OLWM is owned by the state of Minnesota and cannot be privately owned. <br />Moreover, the between the OHWM and ( ' ' 'M, the use of private property is subject <br />to reasunable regulation by uth .y. Whether allocating lake access among <br />riparian owners may constiti. ,t reasonable regulation has not been determined. <br />In any case, the board must decline to decide the case on the basis of this claim for <br />both legal and practical reasons. Legally, the board has Ti,-- authority to adjudicate <br />adverse claims to real property. Because the board has no legal authority, it would <br />make little sense as a pre--tical matter for the board to attempt to decide the issl+e on <br />the basis o" 's opinion about real property interests of tY tar ies. Any decision <br />made on ti. _ -.eis of the board's findings on real proper+•- rests would properly <br />be subject to challenge by either of the parties, and the board would be placed in the <br />position of attempting to defend private real property rights of one citizen against <br />the adverse claims of another. <br />CLL61160 <br />LR110-4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.