10/01/2012 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

established. If a property owner could build a bridge, he is still going "over a navigable waterway" and the test is satisfied. The methods available for crossing are irrelevant. If a waterway exists and is navigable, the cartway statute treats it in the same manner as if it was land owned by others. The Otter Lake channel acts as a barrier to access and satisfies this element of the cartway statute. With both the acreage and access requirements met, the statute requires that a cartway be established. Public use or purpose The HOA continues to argue that establishment of a cartway is a taking and that all takings must be for a public use or purpose, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117. Because the Council previously indicated that it intended to retain private ownership of the HOA road and does not want to spend public funds on it, the HOA claims that the City is precluded from establishing the public cartway. This argument does not accurately reflect the law. While establishing a cartway is an exercise of eminent domain, it is not a taking under Chapter 117. The procedures and requirements contained within that eminent domain chapter do not control the cartway process. Cartways are established under separate statutory authority. Moreover, all cartways are for public use when initially established. Once constructed, the landowner can consent to designating it a private driveway. Minn. Stat. § 435.37, subd. 1(e). This was the hope and intent of the Council when the statement was made in March. If the HOA will not provide such consent, then the cartway will have to remain public. That does not mean, however, that it will be maintained by the City. The Council has indicated throughout this process that it will not spend public funds to maintain the cartway and it is not required to do so. Enormous Reaction/Small Problem The HOA argues that establishing a cartway for Petitioner's limited use is overkill. The use of the subject property however, is irrelevant. Petitioner made the decision as to the necessity for the cartway when he submitted the petition. The City's role is to determine whether the statutory requirements have been met to establish a cartway, and if so, then to determine the location of the cartway and determine damages. The extent to which Petitioner uses the cartway is up to him. Cartway Location Petitioner Johnson requests that the cartway be coextensive with the HOA' s existing driveway to a point where the cartway turns to the northeast into the subject property. The driveway meets the statutory requirement for a cartway that is two rods wide (see attached survey) without any unused width. The statute provides that an alternative route may be selected by the Council if the alternative is deemed "less disruptive and damaging to the affected landowners and in the public's best 2