The URL can be used to link to this page

9b. Action concerning potential falsified survey at 6285 Audubon Circle 1 ill1111! CITY I TY O __.•■ ■• 1111111 DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA CHANHASSEN (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM ' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director ' DATE: December 27, 1990 SUBJ: Action Concerning Potential Falsified Survey at 6285 ' Audubon Circle. ' Last October we reported to the City Council concerning the potential submittal of a falsified survey for a lot located at 6285 Audubon Circle. As the Council may recall, a home nearing completion on this lot has been built without adequate setbacks from the street. A survey prepared by the surveyor indicating the existence of a public cul-de-sac on this property, appears to have been altered by the builder to eliminate the setback requirements from the cul-de-sac edge. Staff inquired of the Council as to what mechanism we should employ to rectify the situation and it was concluded, with the advise of the City Attorney, that the circumstances involving this case were such ' that there was not much success in pursuing it legally. The City Council did, however, ask staff to contact the State of Minnesota to see if they would investigate this complaint. Attached to this memo is a letter I received from the Business Regulation Section of the Office of the Attorney General concerning this issue. The letter indicates that it would take the State six to nine months to resolve but more importantly it points out that the Board does not have the authority to investigate or take action against a person who was not licensed by the State. Therefore they are in a position to investigate the surveyor but are not in a position to investigate the builder. I have known the surveyor and worked with him on a variety of projects over a long period of time and regard him to be a responsible pro- fessional. If in fact any alteration of the survey did take place, it is my belief that it was done by the builder once the survey was removed from the surveyor' s office. Since the State would only have jurisdiction to pursue an investigation against the surveyor it is my opinion that this matter does not warrant further action. Staff is looking for direction from the City Council. Should you wish me to proceed with this complaint, I will endorse the form which was supplied and return it to the State of Minnesota. I I i Memo ' Don Ashworth December 27 , 1990 Page 2 If no further action is taken, staff would attempt to use this incident as a learning experience to further refine our reviews ' of subdivisions and building permits. This incident offers a clear reason for the City to insist upon the outright dedication of right-of-way so that it is illustrated on all official maps and does not involve a wild goose chase, whereby staff is forced to resort to checking legal records at the county to verify whether or not a street easement exists or does not exist. 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 RECEIVED ¢;y ft01LLp�h�F . L.' ; 1 9 1990 mow, k --- STATE OF MINNESOTA cl i r ,.,'vrtrt::oti! (�yj� r � f, '. ��J'. .i�' BLsI\t••i.!', ._1Ti,i\\t MIS , '• 1858± ;,: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IMO RREME i< i(MI R SI.\"L\TH I'L 4c I c.\II\\Ls1:.4 Si PALL."IN"it HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, III TELEPHO\L tr .;.x. = IIATPORNE1 GENERAL December 18, 1990 FA(SI"ILE (6:2)29`.--4$ II PAUL KRAUSS, AICP Director of Planning City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P_:0. Box 147 I Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Complaint Against Gary L. Gabriel of DeMars Gabriel II Land Surveyors, Inc. Dear Mr. Krauss: I am an investigator for the Office of the Attorney II General and am commissioned to investigate complaints filed with the Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying and I Landscape Architecture. This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the complaint you have filed against Gary L. Gabriel, to inform you of this office ' s involvement in the case, and to II advise you that, depending upon the complexity of your allegations, it may take as long as six to nine months to resolve. Please be advised that the Board' s jurisdiction is limited I to taking disciplinary action against professionals who are licensed by the Board, and taking action against persons who II are engaging in the unlicensed practice of a profession which is within the Board' s jurisdiction. The Board does not have the authority to investigate or take action against a person who is not in one of the aforementioned categories. If, for example, the person who altered the survey for the property located at 6285 Audubon Circle is the builder, we would not be able to investigate the case to try to prove fraud or that the II builder falsified documents submitted to the city for the purposes of obtaining a building permit. The information you have provided to the Board and any I information you may provide to the Board or to the Office of the Attorney General as part of an active investigation is confidential pursuant to the Government Data Practices Act, II Minn. Stat. § 13. 04, subd. 2 ( 1988) . Such information is for the use of the Board and the Attorney General in evaluating the complaint. In accordance with statutes, rules and professional .1 standards governing legal action, information provided to the II Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper II Paul Krauss December 18, 1990 Page 2 II Board and to the Attorney may,, in some circumstances, Y be disclosed to certain other persons or entities, including, I but not limited to the Office of Administrative Hearings and appellate courts . Thus, this information may thereby become public data. IIYou may also consent to the disclosure of this information. To aid in the investigation of your complaint, we request that you provide this consent to us by signing below I and returning this letter, or a copy of it, within ten days of the date of this letter. You are not required to do so. However, failure to do so, under some circumstances, may make I it -difficult or impossible to investigate this matter further or to take disciplinary action against Gary L. Gabriel. I Should you have any questions, you may contact me at ( 612) 296-5671. ISincerely, . I Lt., J LL RU ING nvestigator / IIJRK:kmh. fu9 I cc: Lowell Torseth, Executive Secretary Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, and Landscape Architecture 1 Louis Hoffman Special Assistant Attorney General * * * * * * * Check here You have my permission to release my name and the I information contained in the complaint letter against Gary L. Gabriel. PAUL KRAUSS Date I II City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990 Somebody over there clearly dropped the ball because they didn't respond to us for 8 months and when they did respond it was something that was completely different than what we had expected. I think that there's more of an understanding that came out of this meeting today. One of the things that I enjoyed about it is I've never been able to get Met Council people to actually come out and look and we had them do that "today. We borrowed a van and we took them around the community. One of the things we really tried to emphasize is that they're very protective and possessive of the MUSA line and some of the discussions that the Planning Commission's had with different alternatives is that we do`l 't want to create a little donut hole in our MUSA because the Metro ' Council won't accept it. But what we tried to get across to the Metro Council is that Chanhassen is a macro sized donut sized hole in the MUSA. That we're surrounded on four sides by urbanization and I think that came across real well on our trip. ' We took them over down TH 41 into Chaska and basically said you're now west of our downtown. Further west from Minneapolis outside and we drove them back in on Hwy. 18. Industrial on both sides and bang, there's a cornfield and I said, that 's Chanhassen. There's the MUSA line and it comes across visually quite well when you do that. We also skirted Lake Lucy Road and showed them how basically all we have left inside the MUSA now is infill. We tried to Get across the point that we have large properties inside and outside the MUSA are tied up for long periods of time. The Temple of Eck is 175 acres that hasn't been on the market and who knows when it will be. That's obviously, from your discussions of several years ago, that's prime land but it's not available. As the MUSA's expanded, we took great pains to show the Metro Council that if the plan is adopted the way the Planning Commission has drafted it, it will be taking in two large parcels, Jerome Carlson and Prince's and we said we don't expect these properties to develop in the 10 to 15 year timeframe. Ultimately they may but don't count this against us because they're here and I think there was a willingness to recognize the sorts of realities that we deal with. To the , extent that they've never been receptive in recognizing that kind of stuff before and now I think that they are, I think it's made some progress. We'll see shortly. They're aware, we told them that the quasi-official date for the public hearing for the comp plan is October 24th and we told them we're going ahead with that . The Planning Commission's asked us to proceed and that's what we're doing. Councilwoman Dimler: Good, thank you. 1 • ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: POTENTIAL ALTERED SURVEY/VARIANCES, 6285 AUDUBON CIRCLE, GORDON KOEHNEN, 1 PLANNING DIRECTOR. Paul Krauss: This one is quite unusual and is a.little bit frustrating to deal with. There's a house being built up on Audubon Circle and it's nearly complete. It's been built very slowly. I think it's taken about a year, year and a half to be built. One of our building inspectors in going up there took a look at it and said it just didn't seem right to him. It seemed like it was too close to the street and when he scaled it off, realized that there were significant variances on the thing. When this was brought back to our attention, the inspector and Sharmin Al-Jaff took out the survey that was used to support the building permit and realized that it sure appeared to us as though the cul-de-sac bubble which should have been shown on the survey, had 53 1 1 • City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990 • been erased. In the text I've shown you copies of both surveys. I called the surveyor. He was a fellow who was pretty reputable and who I've known for a while and I said, well what gives with this? He indicated that when it left his office it was on there and that the applicant had in fact. . .remove it because there was no easement covering it. It's rather complicated by the fact that nobody can find an easement document for the bubble. The straight section of the road is covered by an easement that's recorded at the County and the County shows the bubble on their half section maps which nobody can figure out but the applicant for the building permit was aware of the fact that there wasn't a ' recorded easement or that nobody could find an easement for the property. We discussed this matter with our city attorney, my first reaction was to try and go and slap a stop work order on it. I thought better to call Roger first before we did that and we basically have several points that shook us up in trying to resolve this matter. The first is that the property is torrance property and apparently State Law is contradictory. On one hand it says if the City uses a street for 6 years it's basically yours. On the other hand it says that or implies that this doesn't apply to torrance property. Apparently there's no case law on it. Roger said you can take it before a judge and try to have him adjudicate in our favor but even if we won, all that would do is give us the right to then try the fact on whether or not he had submitted a false document and then you've got to prove that it was a false document and who falsified it . What it boils down to is we're pretty convinced that somebody handed us a jimmied survey and we've never had this happen before. We're not sure it 's going to happen again because some of the circumstances around this lot are pretty unique. There was a clear reason for the builder to do that. The lot is very steep in the back. Slopes off and then the soils get poor so there was probably a desire to push the house closer to the street. If you want us to pursue this, we will. I guess after talking to Roger though, I don't advise that you tell us to pursue it legally because we're not sure that we'd have a terrible amount , a great amount of success. It's frustrating because - =1 we're pretty certain we know what happened but we can't do a whole lot about it. Mayor Chmiel: I guess this has already happened and as I see it there's really no action on it at this time. How do we prevent this from happening again? Paul Krauss: Well I tried to get at that in wrapping up the report. A couple of things. First of all, once you're stung you look for these things a little more. When you're handed a registered survey, I mean that's gospel. You never think that anybody's going to alter it. Altering one's illegal and surveyors can lose their license. People can be prosecuted for doing it so it's really an odd ball deal that happened. We are going to take .more pain though. I mean when Sharmin put this down on my desk and she said what's wrong with this surve and I was looking at it, I couldn't tell until she told me where the cul-de-sac bubble was. We are going to try and double check ourselves where they have a feature on the street like a cul-de-sac bubble, we should have knowledge of that and be able to check it. One of the other things though, we've been talking to Roger on and off for months about doing is the City's always had a problem in filing easements and getting title to property and recording documents. It's done on a real hit and miss basis. A lot of times we depend on the developer to do it and that 's like asking the devil to do your work for you. You know you're running the risk that they're not going to do it properly. It's not in their interest to do it. And we've had problems. There's a history in the city, not so much recently because Gary's taken a lot of that over, but of easements on ' 54 • I City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990 the north side sewer project was one where easements were never recorded. They were sitting in a drawer by a former City Attorney or whatever happened, it just didn't , they don't show up anyplace. What we'd like to do is have Roger's law firm be responsible for recording documents and easements. The developer would be required to give everything to Roger. Roger would verify them and have a law clerk file it and we pass that charge along to the developer as a cost of developing because they're paying their attorneys to do it right now: With that we're confident that Roger can take their title and make sure that everything is filed and nothing gets released in any way, shape or form until everything's been recorded and we're satisfied that it's done. We think that's the best way of doing it and making sure that we don't get stuck with non-existing easements again in the future. Roger and I have been talking about this. Get Gary and we'd like to firm up that proposal and bring that to you in another administrative item in the near future. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Adjournment? I Councilman Johnson: No. I'd like him to proceed on pursuing the altered document by referring it to the Board of Engineering and Surveyors. This is their jurisdiction. A registered survey's been altered. The State Board should be investigating it . They have investigators that are paid to do this. Hand them over what we've got and let them run with the ball. Not us. Paul Krauss: We could do that. I wasn't aware that we could use that option_ ' it appears that if an alteration occurred, it occurred after it left the surveyor's office. Now we can't determine that. We were given a blue line copy and apparently a copy of a copy because the original that was given to the applicar.t . . .the change is tough to follow so if they have an investigative unit, we'd be happy to forward it to them. Councilman Johnson: Yes they do. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. . Submitted by Don Ashworth ' City Manager • Prepared by Nann Opheim I 55 , 1 . . ill . l l CITY OF . ,...• I 11111011111! CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-19005 FAX (612) 937-5739 I MEMORANDUM ITO: Mayor and City Council I THROUGH: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Q("" IDATE: September 20, 1990 SUBJ: Variance and Potential Falsified Survey for the Property ILocated at 6285 Audubon Circle Staff has recently become aware of a disturbing event that is I occurring with the construction of a home at 6285 Audubon Circle. It appears as though a registered survey submitted in the application for the building permit last year was falsified to I eliminate an illustration of the street's cul-de-sac bubble that intrudes onto this property. As a result of the altered documentation, there is a variance that exists between the home, I that is nearly completed, and the street. This matter came to our attention because of the alertness of Steve Nelson, one of the city's building inspectors, who believed that the home appeared to be unusually close to the street. The builder of the home is I Gordon Koehnen. The survey that was submitted to us for a building permit appears upon closer inspection to have had the illustration of the cul-de-sac bubble erased. We contacted DeMars-Gabriel who I were the land surveyors on this project and they indicated that the original survey clearly has the cul-de-sac illustrated and further indicated recollection that the developer asked them to remove the cul-de-sac bubble. We have included copies of both surveys for Iyour review. Staff is disturbed with the implications of this matter. Altering I a survey to avoid a variance strikes at several fundamental concepts. The first is that a registered survey accurately reflects the situation and can be relied upon by the city to I conduct zoning matters. The second is that falsifying a registered survey is illegal. We have discussed this matter with the City Attorney at length and I am unfortunately frustrated to report that aspects of the situation will make it difficult for the city to I take action to resolve the problem. The first problem deals with the lack of an identifiable right-of-way for an easement over I I i Mayor and City Council September 20, 1990 Page 2 Audubon Circle. The straight street section has a recorded easement document at the courthouse, but the cul-de-sac bubble which intrudes onto the , lot is not backed up by any easement document or right-of-way dedication that can be found by the city or the County Surveyor. It is highly unusual in that the cul-de- sac bubble does show on the county half-section map, but the county is unable to find any documentation to back this up. The County Surveyor indicated that his predecessor may have taken some liberties in this matter or materials have been misplaced, but he cannot verify this or provide any additional information on the background of this situation. This in itself alone would not normally be critical since the city has the right, through adverse possession, to take control over property used for public right-of- - way if it has been used for public right-of-way and maintained by the city for a period of at least six years. In this case, Audubon Circle is quite old and as near as we can recollect, the cul-de-sac bubble was put in at least twelve years ago. However, state law is contradictory on this point since the lot in question is torrens property and another section of state law appears to indicate that adverse possession does not apply over torrens parcels. The City Attorney has indicated that the city would have to first obtain a ruling that the land in question underneath the cul-de-sac bubble is actually city property by adverse possession before this case can be prosecuted. The second aspect of this case is that it would then become incumbent upon the city to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the survey that was submitted to us for a building permit had been falsified. It certainly appears that this is the case although the documentation is by no means absolutely clear, and even if this was demonstrated it is not clear who in fact falsified the data. ' As a result of the above information, staff is in the frustrating position of not being able to advise the city to take direct action in this matter. We are convinced that a misrepresentation occurred, but in conjunction with the City Attorney, are not certain as to whether or not the city could prevail in this matter. As a consequence, we will probably have to live with a home that is located only 19 ft. from the edge of the pavement as opposed to the 30 ft. setback from the easement that is required. Effectively, if a dedicated right-of-way had existed on this property, the home would be set back approximately 20 ft. to the east of where it is currently located. Staff contacted Mr. Koehnen to get an explanation of this matter. He indicated that he believed the surveyor was at fault, but was unwilling or unable to shed more light on the matter. He also indicated that he was aware that there was no recorded easement over the cul-de-sac bubble. Staff also has tried to ascertain why someone would falsify a survey in this way. I't appears as though it was intended to allow the home to be shifted to the west to avoid steep slopes and poor soils. 11 Mayor and City Council ' September 20, 1990 Page 3 ' This situation could have been given consideration for a variance had it been requested. ,. Should the City Council so desire, we would of course pursue this matter to the best extent of our abilities. There may be some object lessons to learn from this case, however. We think that ' this is a highly unusual circumstance given the historical background of the street, however, it is important that staff be more diligent in confirming survey information. This matter also ' re-emphasizes the need to ensure that as plats occur that all necessary rights-of-way and easements are dedicated and filed as a condition of approval. Staff is working with the City Attorney to have his office be responsible for filing plats and to handle all- !' recording of documents since we believe this would be the most effective way to ensure compliance. We will report back to the City Council shortly on this matter. • 1 1. I I . : (,exec) :uRSn A'. , rillIllIllIll . wee.; ./ 9.OD .-7A:2•C n. r ?�� --� - 3/!'1 j /V�9°,9750' ' lA.,, yea. ° ,. i f 1, ' 1 n to s (rerzl.1 =.}I • .l yrrro.i _ ).r l.:' IN i 'y '.0,3.1 Ir . I J Q� I r"` -_vir5.0 'a row4 1: t „k rerc4 rt:r.g ___- -—_, ,f in I •cznb _•� /` . Oln '1104141 1:1::. tr. \\ 1 �rfi C bt .•r ,• .r, �'„r.,r G.w.N..,, ° Z `. s.,,, 1 v n::1 ta s.,,, ly ....y y•r•)7 I p ,x- ▪ L^D ; t 1 h D I 1 • 'Q G � , o n/ /✓9 9":/ SD 't 14 'b.- '/31 - 9v,rt7 z ';r ( .'- .V E .rot;•Fnes S.0 / d,p.50 AZ .,:1 11 g <rots.S ' 5..'s:::/.5 T•`/'6W <'/Jn/0 rL r y Nn.8 E (rers-.t) / 23.83 41'4 • e Denotes Iron rnenunwnt Noposed lowest floor Na.• /615 44. o Denotes omit take proposed sop of loundetan Nov.•WI 33 e eoo.o Denotes witting We.. 0EIIC4 MARK. r°p of 5,,,,,. 5 e- I 000.01 Denotes promesd eft., M.N = '016.45 _—. Denotes surfed deemed, Nomad Wage 1100.ale..•r613.0 ....,.t......' S'/r<•/,/ ', �Otl. fi.,.',j.. .,C s •ie ccw I hereby dewed Nest 111.1 N•feud and cone.,,ep.ewnwl.o”of a ,'..a of !de No , a • lb.b00.INM101the above deK"Md land and of IM 1eeanon of ell bl,.ld.np.. r . DI MARS-GABRIEL .1 any tbe.eon.and N1 w blI enc,oeMmentt .1 env non,o,on w.d fend ,-_.� • PRE PA R C FOR: LAND SURVEYORS.MC. 'I, "!,,7, a"e -'ag e As annoyed by.INS • ' - ; ?‹.1 ,.- '• e = `.°k: s phoosvt1. •'.17:1•'.1,''' f =, . GORDON KOE HN EN N gne m»g»aog l` e .... Mow No N. ' 90G /-'g,' ( f�1 tI k n e srtf3 One • • op i' 0 y 1 Q j li 1 v j 1Ila c { b f I q WF W N r v _ Z UI' YU i 1 I 0 a , Z 0 111 0 I hilt,_ o .. . t< 57,y„ofr/ �� o 0 so��SZ o�/ goo W ,::.. •' C �,c!kco 0,4/ Q •O4 7 tf a • ' • • i W a i • 0 r- • _ wi.i, h p ; , as a� s £ _ �� 2 0 1 t ezF \ 0 \S 0 ‘J ey \ i '•.o I e 0 Ill •_ i M 1 •t i i % 1 -:� j ci 7:i• .R\ \\'' li-• ...$2 tt ol i ' o i ° ti s I'f 1 3 hl \ w I . •- - .. ._ r vui•S�•06/ r".:.,.,s _ j4n [3 _;• t \ ,z s.7,0'p Qp/ �� I D !'C o -# T 1 I. . �oa10 Noenond • II- T n \ 1Iji I ,,,'" i i I i ; 0 'ILL_._. :1'7. • CAMPBELL , rtAUT'E Odd . SCOTT FUCH , F .A Sep ',0 ,90 11 : 12 No . 005 F .02 11 CAMME-LL, T (.1T T ��:- FLIC1 IS, PA. At I, Ttt,t,t..1 �..,,tt•l..-'I Thomas M. FAX (612 012)456A51)450.95 L'•Iliun I . f.ncttili irc•r;,r■ I 1 1.rv:is Ikrtrusl Septemb_?r 14 , 1990 i Mr. Pall Krauss Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhe sen, Minr.ecota 5317 • RE: Gordon Koehnen Dear Paul : ' Yc,•u asked tt e to review the roll n:g facts and render an opinion: 1 . A home is under cr _,:.tLuctic.'r,. 7f the setback is measured from the edge of the col-de-ac bubt.hl c, the setback does not meet ordinance requirements. If the setback is measured from the edge of the City 's recorded easer'e:,t , the sii-tback meets ordinance requirements. 2. The street is not on a platted right-of-way. The City has an easement over the "straight part" of the street , but not over the cul-de-sac bubble. ' 3. The City has been maintaining the street including the cul-de-sac bubble for more than six (6) years. ' 4 . The property is registered land. Minnesota Statutes ' 160.05, Subd. 1 , provides: , Six years. When any road or portion of a road has bee used and kept in repair. and worked for at least six (6) years continuously as a public highway by a road authority, it shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the width of the actual use and be and remain, until lawfully vacated, a public highway whether it has over been established as a public highway or not. Nothing contained in this subdivision shall impair the right, title, or interest of the water department of any city of the first class secured under Special. Laws 1885, Chapter 110. This subdivision shall apply II to roads and streets except platted streets within cities. 1 Yankee Square Office 111 • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington !)rive • Eagan, MN 55122 L HMVBLLL , t.NUT:ON , SCOTT S F UCHS . P . A Sep 20 ,90 11 : i3 No .005 P .03 Mr. Paul Krauss September 14 , 1990 1 Page 2 ' If this were the only stittute in point, the City would have an easement over the cul -de-sac bubble and the setback would be 1 appropriately measured from it. Unfortunately, another statute applies to • registered land. Minn. Stat. § 508. 02 states "no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription cr by adverse possession. " A IFreasonably good argument can he made that the six (6) year statute creates an interest in the property by dedication which is so;nething apart from prescription or adverse possession. This 1 issues has not been reviewed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Attorney General has issued an opinion that the six (6) year statute does apply to reg:.st.e:ed land, copy enclosed. The issue 1 is really undecided, but the better argument is that the six (6) year statute does apply. '1 Very truly yours, 17HE21,7,.KNUTSON, SCOTT ' • & ,FUCH$/ P.A. ti RNK: srn ----�_ toger N. Knutson Enclosure 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Ij • os• ` aj ., r _ -- It I 28 CITIES • I 5. The Minnesota Court in Taylor v. City of Austin, 32 Minn 274, p. 248 in discussing the duty of a municipality keeping sewers in repair stated: " • ' ' It is not material to inquire when or by whom the sewer I was originally constructed, as it is not disputed that the city had as- - = - sumed its control and management. It was therefore its duty to use reasonable diligence to keep it in proper repair. • • • " (Emphasis . supplied) The Minnesota Court in Netzer vs. Crookston City, 59 Minn. 244, held __ = that when a city had built a sewer partly on private property, it was no _ = excuse for failing to repair the same property to make repa ; that quir it had no right to go upon such I irs.It should have aced such right. The Court has put the emphasis upon the city assuming control and management of the sewer. The mere acceptance of a plat which dedicates streets and alleys would not require thee he council to improve and develop I said paper streets and alleys. By the same token the mere approval of a plat should not in and of itself mean the assumption of same and 6 man- agement of sewers 1946. dedicated therein. See Op. Atty. Gen. 18d, , ? y 6. For a discussion of the liability of a municipal corporation where it has assumed control and management of a sewer see Rouche vs. City of , , 4� - ., Minneapolis, 1947, 223 Minn. 359, 27 N.W. 2d 295, in which prior cases are reviewed. Also 26 Minn. Rev. at p. 634. I E'er' '�-yh # : - 1 Minnetonka V, July 23, 1959 ,: Minnetonka Village Attorney _° Y' Plats—Roads and Streets—Road or street can be dedicated by statutory. user despite title registration proceedings had during time of constrnc- �- tion of road. Facts t �.i t _ "In 1945 the owners of a certain area of land within the boundaries 4:; ¢ - ? of what was then the Town of Minnetonka platted said land pursuant •x� 6 to the statutes and provided therein certain dedicated public roads. In _ ;_ -.7� - 1946 the lands as platted were registered under the provisions of Chap- _��x -�'`" ', '. ter 508, Minnesota Statutes. • :.. "Certain of the roads dedicated as public roads in said plat were _ _ not actually constructed in accordance with the plat, but were con- - on- ' Y � > structed and placed into use by the owner so that the roads actually -t _< traversed across and upon one of the lots in said plat. The roads as ` actually constructed and used have remained unchanged to the present I _ date, used by the public and maintained and.repaired by the Town of �- a_' x= ~�- Minnetonka and subsequently, by its successor, the Village of Minne- •' u_ Questions } _ "1. Assuming that the registration of the land and the construc- tion of the road as it actually exists occurred at or about the same I ` V �_ {- .c - +, �-� Al ._ ..!--,-:--;,--=.-- -",` 4+ '" _�, .#. -.sq- ��_- A`- -,7-7--;;',-,. mss. �r i : � ar L"�"'^ _,y' � ,s..- - sTt' cr ` {Z _ 4 I CITIES 29 Austin, 32 Minn 274, p. time, does § 160.19, Minnesota Statutes apply so that the road becomes n sewers in repair stated: a dedicated public road by statutory user? ten or by whom the sewer led that the city had as- "2. Is there any conflict between § 160.19, aforesaid, and Minne- iherefore its duty to use sots Statutes, § 508.02, that would prevent the application of § 160.19 repair. • • • " (Emphasis to registered lands?" I Opinion iv City, 59 Minn. 244, held M.S. 1946, § 160.19 provided [as the now applicable law, M.S. 160.051 ate property, it was no t .d no right to go upon such i also provides]: ch right. I "When any road or portion thereof shall have been used and kept assuming control and in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public s of a plat which dedicates highway the same shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the width Al to improve and develop of two rods on each side of the center line thereof and be and remain, the mere approval of a until lawfully vacated, a public road whether the same has ever been 1 ion of control and man- established as a public highway or not." tty. Gen. 18d, April 6, 1946. i If the road in question [including those portions thereof which were i cicipal corporation where designated as public roads or streets on the plat executed pursuant to M.S. r see Rouche vs. City of . 505 and were thereby dedicated to the public as an easement for way], in which prior cases are has been used, kept in repair and worked for at least six years continu- ously as a public highway, it is deemed to be dedicated as a public road or I street to the extent specified above, and it remains such a road or street until lawfully vacated in the manner provided by statute. 396g-4, July 23, 1959 Proceedings under c. 508 to register the land within the area covered r etonka Village Attorney by the plat do not prevent or impair the use, repair and working of any dedicated by statutory portion thereof, as a public highway. Registered land is subject to the same burdens and incidents as attach by law to unregistered lands. M.S. 508.02. ad during time of construe- 1 And it is provided by M.S. 508.25 that every person receiving a certificate of title shall hold the same subject to: "4. All rights in public highways upon the land." nd within the boundaries • platted said land pursuant . The last sentence of M.S. 508.02 which provides that"no title to regis- a dicated public roads. In ' tered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired i the provisions of Chap- i by prescription or by adverse possession" obviously does not apply to roads and streets dedicated by statutory user under § 160.19. 'lie roads in said plat were AccordingIy, it is our opinion that if the registration of the land and t the plat, but were con- � the construction of the road as it actually exists occurred at or about the that the roads actually ! same time, M.S. 1945, § 160.19 applied so that the road became a public in said plat. The roads as .road by user if the requirements of that section were satisfied. There is no td unchanged to the present conflict between said M.S. 160.19 and M.S. 508.02 which will prevent the "'repaired by the Town of application of M.S. 160.19 to registered lands. r, the Village of Minne- 1Laws 1949, e. 168, added to ; 160.19 the proviso relating to the rights, etc. of the water department of any city of the Srst class secured under special laws 1885, a 110.Laws 1967, e land and the construe- •''. 943, 172 repealed ; 160.19 and said chapter in ; 13 re-enacted the provisions of ; 160.19 adding thereto: "This section shall apply to roads and streets except platted streets within cities, villages and boroughs." Chapter 943, 113, as amended, is coded as M.B. 1957, i i. at or about the same 160.121. Laws 1959,C. 500, Art. VI, ; 13 repealed ; 160.121 and is Art. I. ; 5 thereof, now coded as ; 160.05,re-enacted all of the provisions of ; 160.121. - e.rt 4YLn2 T - - - .j - _ . r,r .z.ca3 i.. _ ._ P rb arC .4 7�• � F 1jr.0 -��` fir-tts avn r� 4 ''z �, � t v � � � " .,-.. ,..{ ..f _r ' '--.4.- Z' ../."- 9i ..Fis ,rl: . - r fir. - e