07/09/2012 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

In re Cartway Petition July 9'2OlZ Page 5 of 9 Any cartway established must be both meaningful and reasonable. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Pepin Tp. of Wabasha County, 784N.W0d378. 382 (Minn. 2010). Mr. )ohnson's Petition defines the proposed cartway as the entire private road, however, mentions that his personal intended use would be limited to approximately 250 feet. (Petition.) Given that Mr. Johnson previously used the proposed cartway against the express wishes o[ the Association, it is not reasonable to believe that he would limit himself to the narrow access point at the very westernmost tip of his property that the 250 foot length would achieve, Additiona[Iy, for enforcement purposes, such a limited access point would unnecessarily burden the Association in policing the scope of the cartway, The City has the ability to select an alternate route for the cartway which would be more reasonable in tight of aLt circumstances. The size ofthe cartway must be determined as to a) length and b) width. A. Length of Cartway The current endpoint ofthe public road ends at a cui de sac. This is to assist in the turnaround of vehicles, including targer emergency and snow removal vehicles, If the City elects to make this a public the road, it is not reasonable to have it end at a point that does not a[[ow for the public or large vehic[es to turn around. Accordingly, if any of the road is to become public, the only reasonable endpoint would be the cut de sac at its easternmost point. Accordingly, the cartway's length should be defined as the entire length of the currently-private road, Alternative and less preferably, ifthe City chooses to end the public portion of the road at some point short of the cut de sac, at a nninirnunn, the public portion of the road should extend to the easternmost point of the Petitioner's property (approximately 770 feet), eliminating the difficulty in enforcing trespass issues as he accesses his property. B. Width of Cartway Any suggestion to make a portion, but not the entire width of the roadway public is also simply unreasonable. To limit the public's use of the roadway to the northern side, for example, would cause vehicles to travel in both directions on the same side of the road. It is obviously not feasible to install barriers in the middle of the road to separate the public portion and the private portion and doing so woutd significantly diminish the effectiveness of the roadway. The road is 28 feet wide and the Petitioned-for cartway (the entire outiot) is