Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. <br /> <br />April 25, 1999 -- Page 3 <br /> <br /> Nonconforming Use -- Owner builds 'storage boat' after request for <br /> boathouse is denied <br /> Citation: Hawks v. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Court of <br /> Appeals of Minnesota, No. C6-98-] 608 (]999) <br /> <br /> Hawks owned a lakefront home in the city of Minnetrista, Minn., which <br /> was a member of the Lake Minne~onka Conservation District. Both the city <br /> and the conservation district prohibited boathouses on the lake. <br /> Hawks applied for a variance allowing him to build a boathouse for his <br /> antique speedboat, but the city denied his request. Hawks instead built a stor- <br /> age boat, which was essentially a boathouse on pontoons. The storage boat <br /> complied with all existing city and conservation district regulations, and Hawks <br /> licensed the storage boat with the state as a nonmotorized houseboat. <br /> A year later, the conservation district adopted an ordinance that prohibited <br /> using storage boats on the lake. Two months later, the district cited Hawks for <br /> violating the ordinance. (Hawks was later found guilty of maintaining a stor- <br /> age boat on the lake.) <br /> Before the criminal complaint was resolved, Hawks sued the conservation <br />district. He claimed the conservation district's ordinance was invalid because <br />it wasn't reasonably related to public health or safety. He also claimed the <br />district couldn't enforce the ordinance against him because his storage boat <br />was a Previously existing nonconforming use that couldn't be extinguished <br />except by eminent domain. Finally, Hawks claimed that if the district could <br />enforce the ordinance against him, it amounted to a taking of his property, <br />requiring just compensation. <br /> According to the conservation district, the prohibition on boathouses was <br />reasonable because it preserved and promoted use of the lake and its shorelands <br />by the general public. It said preventing storage boats such as Hawks' boat was <br />essential to prevent owners from circumventing the prohibition against boat- <br />houses and to maintain the natural beauty of the lake. <br /> The district asked the court to order Hawks to permanently remove the <br />storage boat. The court awarded the district judgment, finding the ordinance <br />was valid. The court ordered Hawks to either remove his storage boat or con- <br />vert it to a houseboat. <br /> Hawks appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />Hawks had to remove the storage boat or convert it into a houseboat. <br />The prohibition against boathouses was reasonable, because it was designed <br />to preserve the lake and promote use of the shoreline. The prohibition against <br />storage boats prevented owners from circumventing the prohibition and helped <br />maintain open waters and the beauty of the lake. <br /> Hawks wasn't entitled to keep the storage boat as a legal nonconforming <br />use simply because he built the boat before the district prohibited them. Hawks <br />had no property rights in keeping the boat on the lake because his property <br /> <br /> <br />