6. Mary J. More, Boyer's Sterling Estates Beachlot: Variance Decision Appeals.CITY OF
y�� CHANHASSEN
WSJ i
BOA DATE: July 22, 1996
CC DATE:
CASE #: Appeal 96 -2
By: Rask:v
rz
a
a
0
1�
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Appeal of Planning Department's decision to allow a boat lift on the Boyer's
Sterling Estates Beachlot
LOCATION: Outlot 1, Boyer's Sterling Estates
Located between 3221 and 3231 Dartmouth Drive
APPLICANT: Mary J. Moore
3231 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
See attached survey
N/A
RSF, Residential Single Family
Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The lot contains a dock with space for two boats to be docked. A
boat lift provides docking for one of the boats. A paved path
provides access to the dock.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
C�
0 0
O 0
0
C
o ON
o
M N
00
N
o
�1 I • -
t
U/•
}
! r �r� : ?
L
Minnewahhta
0
, ana
s. ° Do
' ° e — kol y
a i \�fierr. _ '�
1- 4
yt
, ana
s. ° Do
' ° e — kol y
a i \�fierr. _ '�
Mary J. Moore Appeal
July 22, 1996
Page 2
UPDATE OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETINGS
On July 22, 1996, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the
appeal of Ms. Mary J. Moore. The appeal was of staff's decision to allow a boat lift to remain on
the Boyer's Sterling Estates Beachlot. By a unanimous vote, the Board affirmed staff's decision.
The Board concluded that a boat lift may be used on the Boyer's Sterling Estates Beachlot, and that
boat lifts are not regulated by the beachlot ordinance.
In a letter to the City dated July 26, 1996, Mary J. Moore makes reference to Section 6 -1 which
states: "Mooring means any buoy, post, boat lift, structure or device at which a watercraft may be
moored which is surrounded by public waters." Staff would like to point out that this section
applies to riparian lots only, and not beachlots. Beachlots are covered by a separate ordinance in
Chapter 20 of the City Code. Further, the term mooring was used to describe boats secured to a
buoy away from a dock, such as a sailboat moored in deep water. The permit for Boyer's Sterling
Estates Beachlot was for two boats docked overnight and no moorings. Staff maintains that "two
boats docked" means that the boat may be tied to the dock or placed on a boat lift.
BACKGROUND
The Boyer's Sterling Estates subdivision was platted in 1966. There are 16 lots in the subdivision.
The beachlot is 7,000 square feet in area with 40 feet of lake frontage. The beachlot does not meet
the minimum requirements of 200 feet of lake frontage and the 30,000 square feet of area.
' Chanhassen City Code provides standards for the creation of beachlots. A beachlot is a parcel of
land which provides a shared access to the lake for more than one home owner. In 1993, the City
inventoried all non - conforming beachlots in the city to determine the non - conforming status and
' level of use. The Planning Commission held public hearings to solicit public comment on those
beachlots requesting a non - conforming permit.
On July 26, 1993, the City Council approved a non - conforming use permit for Boyer's Sterling
Estates Homeowners Association recreational beachlot. The permit allows two (2) boats docked
overnight at one dock 50 feet in length, with a 10 foot extension permitted if it meets the City's
dock setback ordinance, no motor vehicle access to the lake, and with the recommendation that a
post and/or sign be installed at the entrance to the beachlot to prohibit access to the lake.
BACKGROUND OF APPEAL
In May of 1996, city staff was informed of the Boyer's Sterling Homeowners Association's intent
to place a boat lift on the beachlot property. Staff informed both the complainant and the
Association that a boat lift would be allowed on the property. Staff based their decision on the
following facts:
Mary J. Moore Appeal
July 22, 1996
Page 3
1. The intent of the non - conforming beachlot permit was to limit the number of boats, size of the
dock, location of dock, swimming beaches, and use of the shoreland, and not to set specific
standards on how boats were to be moored or the size or type of boat. For example, we did not
specify if the boat could be a row boat or a 20 foot cabin cruiser, nor did we indicate how or
where a boat could be moored.
2. Staff did not inventory boat lifts at the time of permit application, nor did the Planning
Commission or City Council request this information. Therefore, no record exists on the
number or location of boat lifts on any beachlot within the City.
3. Staff does not consider the boat lift to be an intensification of the use because no additional
boats will be moored or docked on the beachlot.
4. The 40 feet of lake frontage appears to have sufficient area for a boat lift while maintaining the
10' setback from the extended lot lines.
APPEAL
Mary J. Moore filed an appeal alleging that adding a boat lift constitutes an intensification of the
non - conforming use permit (see letter from Mary J. Moore dated June 25, 1996), and should not be
permitted. The applicant is requesting an immediate recision of staff's decision requiring the boat
lift to be removed from the beachlot. In addition, Ms. Moore alleges that other violations of the
non - conforming use permit have occurred and continue to be a problem.
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING STAFF'S DECISION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council finds that staff made a correct interpretation of the City Code and the non-
conforming use permit for Boyer's Sterling Estates Beachlot when allowing a boat lift to remain
adjacent to the dock. More specifically, the Board finds the following:
1. The intent of the non - conforming beachlot permit was to limit the number of boats, size of the
dock, location of dock, swimming beaches, and use of the shoreland, and not to set specific
standards on how boats were to be moored or the size or type of boat.
2. Staff did not inventory boat lifts at the time of permit application, nor did the Planning
Commission or City Council request this information. Therefore, no record exists on the
number or location of boatlifts on any beach lot within the City.
1
J
n
Mary J. Moore Appeal
July 22, 1996
Page 4
3. The Board does not consider the boat lift to be an intensification of the use because no
additional boats will be moored or docked on the beach lot.
4. The 40 feet of lake frontage appears to have sufficient area for a boat lift while maintaining the
10' setback from the extended lot lines."
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING VIOLATIONS
' Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion concerning the alleged
violations associated with storage of unused dock parts, junk materials, driving and parking on the
beachlot, and the establishment of a sign or gate on the beachlot:
r
r
"The City Council orders Boyer's Sterling Estates Homeowner's Association to bring the lot into
compliance with all the conditions outlined in the non - conforming use permit ( #93 -3) within two
(2) weeks from the date of this meeting. If the Homeowner's Association fails to comply with this
order, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for consideration and possible revocation of
the permit."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Board of Adjustments and Appeals minutes dated July 22, 1996
2. Letter from Mary J. Moore dated July 26, 1996
3. Letter from Mary J. Moore dated June 25, 1996
4. Application for Zoning Appeal dated June 25, 1996
5. Letter to Mr. Moe dated May 23, 1988 supplied by Ms. Moore as an attachment to the
application
6. Letter from Joe Boyer dated July 28, 1987 supplied by Ms. Moore as an attachment to the
application
7. Letter to Mr. Ted Bigos and Robert Roy dated August 19, 1993
8. Non - Conforming Use Permit #93 -3
9. Inventory of Non - Conforming Beachlot Permit for Boyer's Sterling Estates
10. Memorandum to Don Ashworth dated June 30, 1993
11. Plat map of Boyer's Sterling Estates
12. Survey of Outlot 1
13. Non - Conforming Beachlot Application
14. Letter to Roger Knutson dated October 13, 1986
15. Letter to Robert Roy dated November 10, 1986
16. Letter to Barbara Dacy dated October 31, 1986
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Watson: I'm ready for a motion.
Johnson: I make a motion that we deny the variance at 3705 South Cedar Drive. House is
too large. Too much coverage, over 51 %.
Senn: I'll second that.
Johnson: Any more discussion?
Johnson moved, Senn seconded that the Bond of Adjustments and Appeals deny the 4 foot
west side yard valiance, 6 foot east side yard variance, 34 foot lakeshore setback variance,
and a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement of 25% for the
construction of a single family home on the basis that the house is too large and there's too
much impervious cover -age at 51% All voted in favor- and the motion carried.
Johnson: You can appeal this to the Council.
Senn: I think it's important that you understand... Staff tried to work with you to come up
with the best workable solution ... you can go to Council because the Council can make any
decision they want ... and that's really the best place for a decision such as this. If there's any
way that staff..
ZONING APPEAL FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ALLOW A BOAT LIFT
ON THE BOYER'S STERLING ESTATES BEACHLOT AT OUTLOT 1, BOYER'S
STERLING ESTATES, MARY J MOORE.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Johnson: Does the ordinance specifically say anything about boats...?
Rask: No. No, we don't address that. We have a separate section of the Code that deals
with recreational beachlots and we don't refer to boat lifts specifically anywhere in that. It
just states that all structures need to meet that 10 foot setback. No place anywhere in our
ordinance do we deal with boat lifts. Even on an individual lot. We state there's only three
boats moored on a site but we don't say if they can be tied to a dock or boat lift or pulled on
shore.
Johnson: The only thing I was referring to is all the literature I read here, there's no referring
to the boat lift whatsoever. That's the reasoning of course.
10
�I
1
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals - Jul 22 1996
J pp Y
' Watson: I walked down there earlier, I walked down again at 5:30 tonight and it looks
okay...weeds around the dock area, but I mean other than that. I had to chuckle at this part
though. This beachlot is larger than a lot of the houses going in... From the letter we have
' in here from Mary Moore, there's a lot of talk about mess, which I realize is not our problem
at this point but it's gone, outside of there being a couple dock sections which are very neatly
laid on the one side and there's some piece of metal or some such thing next to it, but other
' than that, there wasn't. I walked out on the dock. It's crooked but it's perfectly safe. It's not
rotted or in any way hazardous. It's just like ... but basically I didn't think the property was in
bad condition or anything. I was curious how many people use it. Do they use it a lot?
' Rask: It appears there are two boats. It does allow two for the homeowners.
1
L
Watson: One boat was out and waterskiing.
Rask: I don't know how often it's used on weekends.
Watson: As far as swimming goes and that kind of thing. I was just curious about that but I
actually felt that the property was in pretty good condition. I don't know if it just got cleaned
up. I certainly can testify to that part of it.
Rask: We did contact a homeowner association last year regarding some dock pieces that
were left down there and those were cleaned up. There are a few down there now.
Watson: And what do we, with these association lots, what normally is done with the dock
for instance when it's pulled out in the winter time. Is that left on that property?
Rask: Sure.
Watson: I can't imagine how you'd have a raffle and the one with the shortest straw would
have to take the dock home or what.
Rask: It's just last year when we contacted the homeowners association, it seemed to be
pieces that weren't being used so we simply requested that if you aren't going to use these
pieces, please remove them from the property.
Watson: The Mayor was. going to join us this evening. He was concerned about the location
of the dock. Whether there was the 10 feet and that maybe the dock should be centered a
little better. Not take it out now but maybe next year so that there was even more spacing on
each side. I didn't walk that off and try to figure all that out but that was his desire.
11
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Senn: It's not our consideration anyway.
Johnson: ...the boat lifts on the lake, as I look around the lake...
Watson: Well I could make a motion.
Mary Moore: Are you going to allow for comments?
Watson: Is this a public hearing John?
Rask: Yes it is.
Johnson: Go ahead. State your name and address please.
Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive.... brought the appeal. This
ordinance which I've been involved with for 16 years was established because of the nuisance
of ..these outlots. This is definitely an intensification of this outlot. They tried to get boat
lifts in there before and it was denied. I don't know why your records don't reflect that. As I
pointed out in my letter, the section of the city ordinances as to why they did it. I think a
boat lift is another structure. It's not a dock, no. But it is another structure and that was
never the intent of the ordinance. Now this ordinance did not just apply to outlots. It applies
to lakeshore owners also. As an offset to this ordinance, the lakeshore owners are not
restricted to three boats. My husband parked a boat there because it wasn't registered in my
name. There are other restrictions that have been going on with this ordinance that everybody
else abides by. I have Minnewashta Shores to the west of me. Every year they review at
their annual meeting what the ordinance provisions are. If there have been any new changes.
There's been no abuse. They keep their property clean and neat and they don't allow other
people using it ... over here has allowed other people using this as a public facility. They aren't
even residents of the area. I have motorcycles, trucks, cars running on this ramp. I'd also
like to know if you allow this to stay, where it will be stored. If I have to look at this all
winter, it can't be taken out unless they use a truck ... It was put in by a big truck. It's not just
the fact that it's there. There's an abuse to this lot. There's no way to put it in or take it out
unless you take a truck. That's another abuse of the ordinance. I just don't understand when
you pass an ordinance... how you can now back off and allow this to start all over again. I
will stop ... if that's going to be the case. I wouldn't allow my son to park his boat at my dock
because of this ordinance. You know where's it going to stop? Do we start all over again?
And I'd like to know if you want this to go through, where this is going to be stored.... again
like the dock is, I'll be very upset. That's all I have to say.
Johnson: Anyone else wish to address this.
12
L
I
� I � I
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Senn: I have a question if I could for Ms. Moore. Are you contending then that under the
ordinance, individual lake owners can have up to three boats with no boat lifts?
Mary Jo Moore: No. I'm saying that ... I have not had a boat there ... not registered in my
name.
Senn: No I understand that but you just said.
Mary Jo Moore: No, I can have a boat lift.
Senn: Okay, why can you have a boat lift and why can't they?
' Mary Jo Moore: Because the ordinance restricts the abuses of these recreational beachlots
where development came in with a large parcel of land and stuck 40 feet aside for everybody
to access the lake...
Senn: ...the number of boats.
Mary Jo Moore: ...the ordinance says they maintain what they have and they have two. They
cannot enhance it. They cannot add other structures and only two boats. Now I feel a boat
lift is a structure. It's not going to be driven around the lake. It's a structure.
' Senn: So are you willing to apply that same standard to individual homeowners?
Mary Jo Moore: What?
Watson: No boat lifts.
Mary Jo Moore: There is no requirement on boat lifts for individual homeowners. I have
122 feet of lakeshore. I can have three boats. They have 40 feet and they can have two
boats and a dock, a boat lift and...
Senn: Well you could have three boat lifts. You could have.
Mary Jo Moore: No I can't.
Senn: Under the current ordinance you can.
Watson: There wouldn't be anything to stop you in the ordinance.
13
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Senn: Well I mean, the basic thing that bothers me is I don't think this is a matter of
ordinance interpretation. The ordinance pure and simply does not address it. If we want to
get into addressing whether boat lifts are or aren't docks or structures or whatever, then I
suggest we send it back and look at the ordinance all the way through the process again and
look at it and decide whether it's something that should be included or not included but I
don't know. ...because it's going to be a real interesting argument when we start coming into
individual lake owners.
Watson: Individual lakes and lakeowners and properties are closer together and further apart.
Senn: Yeah, because one neighbor doesn't like looking at the boat lift that the other one has
and I see that as kind of just basically becoming another contention for ... back and forth but to
me again that's a separate issue. I think again, I don't see.
Watson: ...is not addressed at all.
Senn: I don't know how you could look at this ordinance in any way, shape or form and
contend that boat lifts were ever addressed. Because not once are they mentioned anywhere,
nor are they even referenced as it relates to the ordinance. So I don't know why you know,
from our standpoint I don't think it's a matter of interpretation.
Watson: Do we have any other, just out of curiosity, beachlots with boat lifts on them?
Rask: Yes, quite a few.
Watson: So are they all conforming or are some of them also where they do like this one and
not?
Rask: Oh, there's a lot of non - conforming with boat lifts.
Mary Jo Moore: Those were grandfathered in at the time of the survey.
Senn: We have a lot of new recreational beachlots that were created with developments that
weren't even there before and they all have rules attached to them in terms of the number of
docks and numbers of boats but again, nowhere in any of those does it address boat lifts nor
does it in relationship to development agreements or PUD agreements or whatever as they
may deem, which get pretty specific by the way. I mean some of them come down and say
you can't even put a gazebo down there and you can't put this and it gets very specific of all
that you can do and not do, and there's n6 anywhere to boat lifts. So I think it's an
overall issue that if
14
L
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Mary Jo Moore: It needs to be stored.
Senn: The same place every lakeowner stores them. On their property adjacent to the
lakeshore. Again, the ordinance does not tell us that.
Mary Jo Moore: How are they going to get it out?
Senn: Well, I don't know.
Watson: Well how do private dock owners get their boat lifts out of the water?
Senn: Do you have a boat lift?
Mary Jo Moore: No.
Senn: Do any of your neighbors have a boat lift?
Mary Jo Moore: Yes.
Senn: Where do they store their boat lifts?
Mary Jo Moore: I'm not sure. I mean they aren't close neighbors. I don't know where they
store them. I don't see them in the winter.
Senn: I would guess everybody does on the lake.
Watson: Just pulls them up out of the water.
Senn: I mean that's the problem of what you're suggesting we get into because every place
you have one neighbor who has one and one neighbor who doesn't have one, we're going to
like I say get into arguments over can they be there. Can't they be there. Can they be stored
there. Can't they be stored there.
Johnson: I realize the fact that it says no vehicles but you can't tell them, I don't think we
can tell them how to take that boat lift out of the water. If you just take the truck.
Mary Jo Moore: It says... motorized vehicles. That's in the ordinance.
Senn: Then they can put it in and out with a winch. They don't need a vehicle to get it.
15
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Mary Jo Moore: It was a pretty big truck to put it in.
Johnson: There's a gentleman over here who wants to speak. Do you want to speak?
Ted Bigos: My name is Ted Bigos and I've lived at the house where the outlot is for 15
years—and sometimes he'd use it all the time ... pump out the water and my boat sunk a couple
times so I bought this new boat. This time I wanted to make sure I bought a lift and before I
bought the $2,000 lift I talked to people in the city and asked if it would be a problem to
have a boat lift. The people who cut my grass also maintain the grass there, the lawn service.
I don't see why I shouldn't be able to have a boat lift when everybody else on the lake had
boat lifts. It doesn't seem fair. I've got some pictures here, if you look from her back yard,
there's a couple trees. You can even see where my boat lift is so it doesn't seem an issue...
Johnson: Anybody else wish to address this? State your name and address please.
Paula Roettger: My name is Paula Roettger and I live at 3221 Dartmouth Drive. I live
adjacent also to that outlot and I don't see a problem with having a boat lift down there. I've
lived for almost 20 years. I think it's just more of a harassment on her part not to have a boat
lift down there. She's tried every year to restrict that property as much as possible. I guess
I'm in favor of having a boat lift down there. I, myself had a boat lift on my property. I
stored it on my shoreline. I store my boats, or my dock, I'm sorry, on the outlot for several
years before and now she's made it virtually impossible to even work with that property. She
does not maintain it. She doesn't have any rights to it. She doesn't even pay taxes for it and
frankly I don't even know why we're listening to her. I guess that's pretty much all I have to
say. I'm in favor for having a boat lift down there. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else?
John Webbed:
from the outlot
Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Senn: What are we doing?
Watson: How do we do this? We're not going to address the...
16
J
1
My name is John Webbed and I live at 3220 Dartmouth Drive, right across '
I keep my boat down there with Ted's and the boat lift isn't a problem at all.
u
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - Jul 22 1996
J PP Y .>
Rask: The recommendation that we've made here is for the Board to find that the City staff
made a correct interpretation of the ordinance. We list 1 through 4 there specifically why we
felt the boat lift was an allowed use for the property.
' Senn: Okay. Well I'll move approval that staff administratively correctly interpreted the
current ordinance and the current ordinance finds no definition to nor references in any way,
' shape or form to boat lifts and under the current ordinance it would be very difficult... real
difficult for us to render an opinion otherwise. And I would just suggest as an adjunct to
that, if somebody feels that there's a need to regulate them, then it ought to be addressed as
part of an ordinance. Not as part of the interpretation of an existing ordinance without any
reference to them.
' Watson: I'll second that. Do we want to ask Roger? This was an appeal of a Planning
Department's decision to allow a boat lift on a non - conforming beachlot. And the ordinance
doesn't address boat lifts pro or con. Is this, what we've done okay? I mean is it enough?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Johnson: Thank you Roger. Any more discussion?
Senn moved, Watson seconded that the Bo uxl of Adjustments and Appeals finds that city
' staff made a cornect interpretation of the City Code and the non - conforming use permit for
Boyer's Sterling Estates Beachlot when allowing a boat lift to remain adjacent to the dock
Move specifically the Board finds the following:
' 1. The intent of the non - conforming beachlot permit was to limit the number of boats, size
of the dock, location of dock, swimming beaches, and use of the shoreland, and not to set
' specific standards on how boats were to be moored or the size or type of boat.
2. Staff did not inventory boat lifts at the time of permit application, nor did the Planning
Commission or City Council request this information. Therefore, no record exists on the
number or location of boat lifts on any beach lot within the City.
' 3. The Board does not consider the boat lift to be an intensification of the use because no
additional boats will be moored or docked on the beachlot.
' 4. The 40 feet of lake frontage appears to have sufficient area for a boat lift while
maintaining the 10' setback from the extended lot lines.
All voted in favor-and the motion carried.
17
Board of Adjustments and Appeals a July 22, 1996
Johnson: If you wish to you can appeal to the City Council.
Mary Jo Moore: Thank you.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to close the public hearings. All voted in favor and the
motion canied.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals dated June 24, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor, except Senn who abstained,
and the motion carried.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carded. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Submitted by John Rask
Planner I
Prepared by Nann Opheim
18
7
'1
MARY J. MOORE
3231 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
July 26, 1996
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Attention: John Rask, Planner I Facsimile No. 937 -5739
Subject: Outlot 1, Boyer's Sterling Estates Recreational Beachlot - Appeal of
Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals' Decision made at
Public Hearing held on July 22, 1996.
Dear Mr. Rask:
This letter is submitted as a request for a hearing of the Chanhassen City Council to appeal
the subject decision regarding the installation of a boatlift on Boyer's Sterling Estates Outlot.
Further, I request revocation of Non - Conforming Use Permit #93 -3 due to the numerous
violations of the provisions of the permit and the Ordinance regulating non - conforming
recreational beachlots. These violations are outlined in my letter of Appeal to the Zoning
Board dated June 25, 1996.
As recommended by the Planning Commission (July 7, 1993) and adopted by the City
Council, this lot was to have no motor vehicle access, no off- street parking, no boat launch.
These provisions have all been violated by the permit holder, Ted Bigos.
The permit allows a 50 -foot seasonal dock with two boats at the dock and NO BOATS
MOORED. The permit application of Mr. Bigos (received by the City June 24, 1993 - four
months late!) lists number of boats moored as "None ".
Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 6, BOATS AND WATERWAYS, Sec. 6 -1 Definitions:
Mooring means any buoy, post, boat lift, structure or device at which a watercraft
may be moored which is surrounETTy public waters.
It is obvious by this definition that NO BOATS MOORED means NO BOAT LIFT.
Please keep me apprised of all actions taken. Thank you.
Sincerely,
� ZIX
ary J. a0
474 -5672 - home
482 -4541 - office
7
MARY J. MOORE '
3231 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
June 25 1996 '
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive '
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Attention: John Rask, Planner I '
Subject: Boyer's Estate Recreational Beachlot - Appeal of Zoning Decision Made by
Chanhassen Planning Department
Reference your letter dated May 29, 1996. '
Dear Mr. Rask: '
Enclosed is the completed and signed application requesting a hearing of the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals to appeal the City's decision to allow the installation of a boatlift at
the Boyer's Estate Recreational Beachlot ( "Boyer's "). I request an immediate recision of '
that decision.
As stated in Section 1. Purpose and Intent of the City Ordinance 47AB:
"The City Council's purpose for enacting this ordinance is to promote public health, ,
safety, and general welfare, to promote safety and sanitation in the use of public waters,
to keep public waters open for general public use, to avoid pollution and uncontrolled
and excessive use of public waters for docks, mooring and other structures and to '
eliminate unsafe and excessive installations of docks, boat mooring areas and other
fixed or floating structures on the lakes (emphasis added)
Through numerous hearings with the City Council; evidence submittals to the Planning '
Department; and a final determination by the City Attorney in 1986, Boyer's was restricted to
(i) installation of one dock and (ii) no more than two boats moored at the dock in
conformance with the dock survey done by the City. There was no provision for "boat
moorings" or other "fixed or floating structures ". (Reference attached letter dated May 23,
1988.) It is also interesting to note the attached letter dated July 28, 1987, from the developer
of this property which states that he envisioned boats "with no boat lifts .
Additional hearings were held in the early 1990's regarding expansion of Boyer's lot use '
with the application of the non - conforming conditional use permit submitted by Ted Bigos
and John Weber. The result of this hearing confirmed the established restriction of one dock '
and two boats
Further, Section 7. Effect on Existing Recreational Beach Lots, states:
"Docks or buildings lawfully existing .... deemed to be nonconforming uses. No ,
such nonconforming dock or building shall be enlarged or altered, or increased or
occupy a greater area than that occupied by such dock or building on the effect date
of this ordinance or any amendment thereto." (emphasis added) '
RECEIVED
JUN 2 71996 '
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
City of Chanhassen
' June 25, 1996
Page Two
' This outlot has been, and still is, in violation of the conditional use permit. Not only for the
further expansion of the dock area, but for the maintenance and upkeep. This lot is used for
storage of old dock and boat parts, dock posts, car tires, dock bumpers, etc. There is no
maintenance of the lake or shoreline weeds nor is the current dock kept in good repair. It is
' falling apart and actually quite dangerous. Further violations of the permit are the dumping
of tree branches and leaves, and the driving automobiles and motorcycles on the property.
During the winter, dock parts, and if the decision is allowed to stand, this unsightly boatlift
will be stored on the property. In addition, the boatlift is launched and removed by means of
' a motor vehicle - another violation of the ordinance.
A survey of the property was completed in 1986/87 and it was determined that there is 35 feet
' of shoreline at the high water line. This is in contradiction to the "sixty feet" submitted in
the conditional use permit. The east lot line for this property takes a bend about fifteen feet
from the shoreline and proceeds out into the water to an eventual 60 foot width. However, it
has been established that it is no longer valid to project lot lines other than at a 90 degree
' angle to the shoreline. Further, permits for the control of aquatic weeds lists this shoreline
property length at 35 feet.
My property has a chairnlink fence which is set a minimum of one foot back from the outlot
' property line. However, due to the pile of junk contained on this property (some of which
leans against my fence) I am unable to maintain the side of the fence facing the outlot.
' Mr. Bigos personal home property is impeccably maintained. And, in fact, Mr. Bigos
installed a fence on his property to prevent his view of a new home built next door for which
he objected to its size and quality. One would think that with this personal attitude, he could
understand my concerns over the property at which I have to look and my concern for our
beautiful lake.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the installation of the boatlift is a direct and flagrant violation of
the City Code and the conditional use permit. Due to the numerous issues cited above, the
' conditional use permit should be repealed, but at a minimum, I request an immediate hearing
and appeal of the City's recent decision.
Please keep me apprised of your actions.
' Sincerely,
' ary J.
474 -567 - home
' 482 -4541 - office
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: & - J_
ADDRESS: 0.2 a/ 4 -'7Wfi0111��� -DI
,�_yL SLSto/2 MAJ S 33
TELEPHONE (Day time) 4 Sz — 4 4
OWNER: jd� ✓�
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW /Easements
Interim Use Permit
Variance
Non - conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
_ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review*
X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost **
($50 CUP /SPRNACNARNVAP /Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision*
TOTAL FEE $ --
A us uded with the
a \
B aerial same es
* -six full size folded co ie us a su , ' z uce
t ncy t.
** scrow wi quire for o era tvontract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
J
I
I PROJECT NAME N
LOCATION
' LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTALACREAGE
' WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
' REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST sC 4`-77
.cJ G < 5 O
' This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
' A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
' This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
1 extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
' Sign ure of ApQ#n Date
' Signature of Fee Owner Date
n
Application Received on Fee Paid
Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
CITY OF
CHAN8ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900
Eastlund, Solstad & Hutchinson, Ltd.
Attn: Mr. Dale Moe
1702 Midwest Plaza Building
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Boyer's Estates Recreational Beachlot
Dear Mr. Moe:
Our last conversation on this matter occurred in September of
1987. We agreed that you or Mr. Hofer would conduct a survey of
lot owners of record in the summer of 1981 to determine the
number of boats stored on the beachlot prior to the effective
date of the beachlot ordinance. In my letter dated September 8,
1987, I stated that we should resolve this issue before the 1988
boating season. Please forward to me the results of the
research. In the meantime, I have no other choice but to enforce
the current interpretation of the City on the use of that beach -
lot which is as follows:
1. One dock may be installed on the beachlot.
2. No more than two boats shall be moored at the dock.
3. Although legally not required to observe dock setback zones,
the dock shall be placed so as to not interfere with adjacent
property owner's boat traffic.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to con-
tact me.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dacy
City Planner
BD:ktm
cc: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Ray Roettger, 3221 Dartmouth Drive
James Hofer, 3220 Dartmouth Drive
May 23, 1988
96uip Residential Building Contractor
3630 Virginia Avenue, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 473 -5293
' Jul 283 1 83
July 9 7
To Whom it may concern;
I My name is Joe Boyer
' In 1964 I purchased the 16 acres on Lake I�innewashta
now known as Sterling Estates.
I lived in the large stone estate house with my family
' and developed the remaining acreage into 15 single family lots.
Six of the lots were on private lakeshore and the remaining were
off shore w /deeded lake access. There were no restrictions at
' that time regarding the number of boat docks and we sold the lots
giving the owner the understanding that each homesite could have
dock space for 1 boat at the outlot. We envisioned boats of 16
' to 17 runabout size at the most wealth no boat lifts. The outlot
was 60 wide at the shoreline.
I expressley know that in 1967 there were always 2 docks,
each 60 long, and with 4 boats anchored to the docks at all times.
At that time there were only two (2) offshore houses in the area,
one of them being mine. ^
' How can city expect to reneg on a plat that has been in effect
for 20 years with theirinew amended ordinance? I think it is
grossly unfair. These homeowners have a deeded right to this space.
F
r
Sincei
/
r
e B(
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN /J-1 1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Mr. Ted I. Bigos
3221 Highway 7
Excelsior, MN 55331
and
Mr. Robert Roy
3101 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Messrs. Bigos and Roy:
This letter is to confirm that on July 26, 1993, the City Council approved Non - conforming
Use Permit Request #93 -3 for Boyer's Sterling Estates Homeowners Association with the
following:
1. Two boats docked overnight;
2. One dock, 50 feet in length, and a 10 foot extension, if it meets the dock
setback;
3. No motor vehicle access to the lake;
4. A sign must be installed at the entrance to the beachlot to prohibit access to the
lake.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
KUL
Kathryn R. Aanenson
Senior Planner
KA:v
Enclosure
August 19, 1993
L
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT #93 -3
1. Permit Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use:
Recreational beachlot for Boyer's Sterling Estates Homeowners Association
2. Pr operty . The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows:
Outlot 1, Boyer's Sterling Estates
3. Conditions The permit is issued subject to the following conditions:
a. Two boats docked overnight;
b. One dock, 50 feet in length, and a 10 foot extension, if it meets the dock setback;
C. No motor vehicle access to the lake;
d. A sign must be installed at the entrance to the beachlot to prohibit access to the
lake.
4. Termination of Permit The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing
for violation of the terms of this permit.
5. Lapse If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction
has not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an
extension is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
6. Criminal Penalty Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal
misdemeanor.
Dated: Julv 26, 1993
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
t
By: &,4�
D ld J. Chmiel, Mayor
By:
Don s worth, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this a.5 - nay of ,
1913 by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor and Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Ch nhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
by its City Council.
DRAFTED 3Y:
Campbell, Knutson, Scott
& Fuchs, P.A.
Suite 317
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 455 -5000
RNK
1 v�
No 6y ubl'c
1 ;`; KAREN �. M LHARDT
I �- NOTARY PUBLIC— NIIINNESOTA 1
tiny Coa CARVER COU OC TY 16. 199' 1
NON - CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT
Boyer's Sterling Estates
Association
Boyer's Sterling Estates
Lake
Minnewashta
Number of Homes
16
Size, square feet
8,400'
Shoreline
55'
Motor Vehicle Access
yes
Boat Launch
yes
Buildings
none
Seasonal Dock
1
50' with
10' extension if it meets the dock setback
Canoe Racks
none
Boats on Land
0
Boats at Dock
Two (2)
Boats Moored
none
Swimming Beach
yes
Swimming Raft
no
Miscellaneous
1
CITY OF 14
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 9 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
DATE: June 30, 1993
SUBJ: Boyer Sterling Estates Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot
BACKGROUND
The Boyer's Sterling Estates Subdivision was platted in 1966. There are 16 lots in the
subdivision. In 1966, the beachlot was 9,000 square feet in area with 60 feet of lake frontage.
A 1986 survey shows the beachlot at 7,000 square feet in area with 40 feet of lake frontage. The
beachlot does not meet the minimum requirements of 200 feet of lake frontage and the 30,000
square feet of area.
In conjunction with filing the plat, restrictions on use of Outlot 1 were also filed. There was a
complaint against the beachlot made in 1986. A history of the beachlot was outlined by City
Planner, Barb Dacy. An incorporated or established homeowner's association for Sterling Estates
was not or has not been organized with official filing of by -laws or regulations. Based on the
evidence provided at the time of the complaint in 1986, City Attorney, Roger Knutson
determined that the level of use should be one dock with no more than two boats at the dock.
Part of the complaint is the extension of the dock into the dock setback zone. The city has
recently passed an ordinance requiring that all docks meet the dock setback zone, which is ten
feet.
An inspection of this beachlot was performed by the city in 1981. At that time, it was observed
that there was one dock, no boats were noted at the dock, moored or on land. There was a
swimming beach. There is a motor vehicle access to the site, the 1981 inventory noted no boat
launch, although the association is requesting one.
is
t wo PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
J
Boyer's Sterling Estates
June 30, 1993
Page 2
SUMMARY
The association is requesting the approval of one dock with up to 4 boats docked overnight,
motor vehicle access and the boat launch.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On Wednesday, June 7, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Boyer
Sterling Estates Recreational Beachlot non - conforming use permit. The Planning Commission
recommended two boats to be docked overnight, with no motor vehicle access to the lake. The
Commission recommended placing a post at the entrance to the beachlot to prorhibit access. The
Commission also recommeded that the 10' extension off of the 50 foot dock be eliminated.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Beachlot Application
2. Summary of Beachlot Inventory
3. 1986 Recreational Beachlot Complaint
4. Public hearing notice
1
� —
E cor. of Si 2..
u, !
ao: - 8 Q 2 19 5 6.2 H. C. F
7 681.5 Res - -
A 3 4 5
s�
o C/) f
B CD
JJ
c 2 � o �
n � ` 50 .� , i
� v
DRIVE Z
Z e
w
JNN. D&ER t i Q i i
U v. GTF.'N0. 13329 J�
g
2
LAKE ST. (vacated)
,_ `. iii , f ` a•
z• % y a ch to ,
f _ 14 :�
SURVEY FOR: Rrpax 60652 - 001 367.35
,fVk Prepared By:
�� OL' SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Solis Testing
10550 Wayzata Boulevard
�
p Rl 32 CV b Minnetonka. Mn. 55343
A,: ��0, � Tel. 646 -76o1
0
T
co
,, 401
DESCRIPTION:
Outlot 1, BOYER'S STERLING ESTATES.
GENERAL NOTES:
1) o - Denotes iron monument set.
2) • - Denotes iron monument found.
3) O - Denotes wood stake.
0
vo S
o
r
I hereby certify that this survey
was prepared under my supervision
and that I am a Licensed Land
Surveyor under the laws of the
State of Minnesota. f
Theodore D. Kemna
Date: 23 July 1986 Lic.No. 17006
u
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
NON - CONFORMING RECREATIO BEACHLOT APPLICATION /
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: �V �!
CONTACT PERSON: l ,
ADDRESS: J 2 ( Tuti�� �Ct S I C/ N` �
s 5 �
TELEPHONE Hie) L !� TELEPHONE (Evvning): �' Z 6 — Ll
Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981.
1. Number of homes in the Homeowners Association
2. Length of shoreland (feet)
S /
3. Total area of Beachlot (in square feet)
1 U.,
4. Number of docks on C_.-
l
6. Length of dock(s) q C u
7. Number of boats docked R /",-
8. Number of canoe racks NJ
9. Number of boats stored on canoe racks
10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats.
11. Number of boats on land ui t
12. Swimming beach Yes 1 No Buoys Yes No
13. Swimming Raft
14. Boat Launch
Yes No
Yes I/ No
I
r
15. Motor vehicle access Yes No
Number of parking spaces 11.0
16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets:
r
October 13, 1986
OF
L A L
M
690 COULTER DRIVE a P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900
Mr. Roger Knutson
Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson
P.O. Box 57
St. Paul, MN 55075
Re: Recreational Beachlot Complaint
Dear Roger:
This is to request your opinion regarding whether or not a viola-
tion to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance exists at the Boyer's
Sterling Estates Beachlot on Lake Minnewashta.
A complaint has been filed by abutting owners of the Beachlot,
Mary J. Moore (west) and Raymond Roettger (east). Please see
letters dated August 4, 1986 and September 25, 1986. Thev con-
tend that the dock and boats are illegal and must be removed.
Please review the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance as to existing
non - conforming docks and beachlots as it applies to this
complaint.
It appears from the information submitted that the chronology of
events is as follows:
1. Boyer's Sterling Estates was platted in 1966.
2. In conjunction with filing the plat, restrictions on use of
Outlot 1 was also filed.
3. An incorporated or established homeowner's association for
Sterling Estates was not or has not been organized with offi-
cial filing of by -laws or regulations.
4. The subdividers of the property, the Boyer's, apparently
installed a 3 x 60 foot dock and stored three boats at it for
approximately 8 years. Another lot owner in the subdivision,
Schur, lived at 6220 Barberry Circle (Lot 2, Block 3) and
installed a similar dock next to the Boyer's and moored two
boats for approximately the same time period. Boyer sub-
sequently removed his dock permanently after 1973.
u
i
Mr. Roger Knutson
i October 13, 1986
Page 2
-5. Peter and Judy Walman bought the Schur residence at 6220
Barberry Circle in 1974. Their letter of September 3, 1986
states at that time one dock with one boat was in place
at the outlot belonging to the Schur's. Walman's bought the
boat and installed a new dock in 1977 or 1978.
6. In 1977, a person by the name of Mike Holloway, purchased Joe
Boyer's home and in the 1977 -1978 time frame, installed a
boat at the dock on the outlot.
-7. The August 4, 1986 letter from Moore /Roettger alleges that
such installation of the dock was done in 1979 and was done
without the knowledge or approval of other homeowners.
9M
0
10.
11.
12.
U-.to this point in time, there appears to have been two
boats moored at the dock from at least 1979 to 1981.
In the Walman letter of September 3, 1986, it is alleged that
in 1980.or_1981 the Emmett's, who reside at 6210 Barberry
Circle, stored their boat at the dock off of the outlot.
This item-is contested by the Moore letter of September 23rd
stating that the Emmett's did not move into the area until
August 17, 1982, according to the contract for deed evi-
dencing the sale of the residence which was recorded at the
county on September 7, 1982, Document No. 56232.
The .bore /Roettger complaint states that they feel that there
were only two boats moored at the dock before the effective
date of the Beachlot Ordinance of ".larch 17, 1982. The
remaining homeowners in the area maintain that there was at
: least one dock and three boats moored at that dock.
Each party has submitted pictures.
It is also asserted by Moore /Roettger that the dock is
_installed so that it encroaches on the dock setback zone of
.their properties..
13. The.city.conducted a recreational beachlot survey depicting
-.existing conditions of all beachlots as of June 4, 1981 in
preparation of the original beachlot ordinance. That survey
recorded the existence of a seasonal dock of 50 feet with a
ten foot perpendicular extension. At that particular time,
there was no boats moored at the dock, on the land or at
buoys.
a e
Mr. Roger Knutson
October 13, 1986
Page 3
Your interpretation is desired on the following issues:
1. Whether or not having an established homeowners association
continually maintaining a dock constitutes a "lawfully"
existing dock according to the ordinance.
2. Given the conflicting evidence as to the number of boats
moored at the dock, is it the correct interpretation to state
that if "x" number of existed prior to the effective
date of the ordinance of March 17, 1982, the number of boats
should not increase as the ordinance deems a recreational
beachlot as a non - conforming use not to be enlarged.
Secondly, what is your interpretation of the number of boats
existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance?
3. In reviewing City files, it was the intent of the city survey
to record what was occurring at existing beachlots. A dock
did exist according to the survey; however, boats were not in
place at that time. Either they were not installed or were
in use. Would the survey act as a legal basis to verify the
existence of the dock /boats?
4. Is it correct that non - conforming or conforming docks should
be installed so that it should not prohibit access to adja-
cent properties or encroach upon "dock setback zones" of
adjacent properties?
V ry tr ly yours,
Barbara Dacy
City Planner
BD:v
CITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900
' November 10 1986
1 -
Mr. Robert Roy
' 3110 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
' Dear Mr. Roy:
Attached please find the response from our City Attorney's office
regarding the complaint at the Boyer's Estate Recreational
' Beachlot. Also attached is my letter to him requesting his
interpretation of the items that were submitted to my attention.
' Based on the Attorney's response, the following shall dictate the
use of the beachlot in the future:
1. Installation of one dock.
' 2. No more than two boats shall be moored
at the Sock.
3. Although legally not required to observe dock setback
zones, the dock shall be placed so as to not interfere
with adjacent property owners boat traffic.
' Affected property owners are encouraged to work together to
comply with the above position. Should you have further
questions or wish to discuss the matter further, please feel free
' to contact me.
Sincer y,
' Barbara Dacy
City Planner
BD :k
7
DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874 - 1961
DAVID L. GRANNis, JR. - 1910 -1980
VANCE B. GRANNIS
VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR,
PATRICK A.FARRELL
DAVID L. GRANNIS, III
ROGER N. KNUTsoN
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
POST OFFICE BOX 57
403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING
161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE
SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
TELEPHONE: (612) 455-1661
October 31, 1986
Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Recreational Beachlot Complaint
Dear Barb:
TEucoPIER:
(612) 455 -2359
DAVID L. HARMEYER'
M. CECILIA RAY
ELLIOTT B. KNETsCH
Your letter of October 13th asked a series of questions
concerning whether or not the Boyer's are violating the Recreational
Beachlot Ordinance.
1. If the dock is designated on the June 1981 map referred
to in Section 6 of Ordinance 47AB, the dock is a legal non - conforming
dock and can continue to exist as provided in Section 7 of Ordinance
47AB.
2. Since the dock is non - conforming the number of boats
cannot exceed the number moored at the dock on the effective
date of the ordinance. A landowner does not have the right to
intensify a non- conforming use. Prior Lake Aggregators Inc, v.
City of Savage 349 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. App. 1984).
3. It is difficult to sort out how many boats were moored
at the dock on the effective date of the ordinance in 1982. If
the only basis for the present owner's claim that three boats
were moored is the Emmett's purchase of the home and adding the
third boat, then the present owner is mistaken. The Emmett's
deed establishes that they did not move in until September 7,
1982. We could prosecute based upon the information we have if
more than two boats are moored at the dock. The prosecution would
not be easy, however, because the City would have to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that only two boats were moored at the dock
in 1982.
4. The City's survey is evidence of the existence of the
dock. It doesn't have much, if any, significance on the number
of boats using the dock. They could have been out on the water.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
NOV C -1' !986
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
C
F
C'
Ms. Barbara Dacy - Recreational Beachlot Complaint
October 31, 1986
Page Two
5. Legal non - conforming docks do not have to observe the
dock setback zone. The zoning ordinance provides they can continue
at the same location.
If you have any additional questions or would like us to
take action, please let me know.
Ver truly yours,
GR NIS,� ANNIS, ELL.
K ON, P.A.
N. K ntxC on
RNK:srn
Enclosures