Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/1998

Home

Page 6 March 10, 1998 Z.B. In 1995, the city of Minnetonka informed Wartman that he had to remove his dock because it was not a permitted use in the zoning district. It said that under its zoning ordinance, Wartman's dock was an accessory use not connected to any permitted use and was therefore prohibited. The zoning ordinance defined an accessory use as "recreational facilities and structure." Wartman refused to remove the dock. The city sued Wartman, seeking a court order compelling him to remove the dock. Wartman claimed the city had no right to regulate"his dock, because the Minnetonka Conservation District had exclusive authority to regulate docks on the lake. According to Wartman, maintaining a dock floating on the surface of a lake was no different than dredging a lakebed-- so it was regulated by the authority, not the city. He argued the city's authority extended only to the regulation of the shoreline of the!ake. The court awarded the city judgment without a trial, and ordered Wartman to remove the dock. Wartman appealed. He claimed the court shouldn't have found his dock was an accessory use, because the definition of "accessory use" in the zoning ordinance was too imprecise to include a dock. DECISION: Affirmed. The trial court properly ordered Wartman to remove the dock. The dock was an accessory use, and was prohibited by the city code. The court didn't mistakenly find that Wartman's dock was an accessory use, as Wartman argued. The ordinance defined "accessory use" as "recreational facilities and structure." There was no question that Wartman's dock was a facility or structure. Nor was there a question that his dock was used for recreation. Wart, man was also wrong in arguing that only the conservation district had the authority to regulate his dock. Docks abutted land and were located within cities that could regulate them, whereas the dredging of a lakebed affected an entire lake. Moreover, state law specifically gave the city the statutory power to regulate docks. see also: Welsh v. City o£Orono, 355 N.W.2d 117 (1984). County of Wright v. Kennedy, 415 N.W.2d 728 (1987). Ordinance., Mining company says new zoning law is invalid Preble Aggregate Inc. v. Town of Preble, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, Docket No. 80378 (1998) In 1988, the Town Board of the Town of Preble, N.Y., passed a new zoning law Local Law 1. The new law prohibited all mining in a newly designated area of the town called "Zone A." Just before it passed the law, the town board added three amendments. First, it attached a supplemental map to more clearly define the new zone. Second, it included a "grandfather clause" exempting parties that already had mining permits for land within the zone. Third, it included a provision stating, "this law shall take effect immediately."