HomeMy WebLinkAbout9D - Report Regarding City's Authority to Regulate Placement of Docks
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
July 16, 2007 \~
:~ank Boyles, City Manag~
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT REGARDING THE CITY'S
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE PLACEMENT OF DOCKS AND WHETHER THE
CITY CAN REQUIRE PROPERTY OWNERS TO MEDIATE DISPUTES
BEFORE BRINGING SUCH MATTERS TO DISTRICT COURT.
Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is to receive City Council input regarding the
regulation of docks.
Historv
At the May 7 2007, meeting the City Council received a proposal from staff
recommending a process and timeline for examining current City dock
regulations and recommending whether and what kind of regulations, if any, the
Council should adopt. Attached are the minutes from the May 7 meeting and
the agenda report for information purposes.
After considerable discussion, the Council instead adopted a motion to direct the
City Attorney to prepare a report on:
1. What is the City's authority to regulate the placement of docks; and
2. Can the City require property owners to mediate disputes about the
placement of docks.
Current Circumstances
The City Attorney has prepared a report (attached). The report indicates that the
City may regulate the location of docks as long as the City balances the rights of
the riparian property owner with the public interest. It also states that the City
may not require property owners to mediate the disputes regarding the
placement of docks prior to commencing action in district court.
The City Attorney's conclusions regarding dock regulations are underscored in
the attached Department of Natural Resources handout regarding dock location
and size regulations.
The staff has also done some reflecting on the matter of docks. We have
reviewed the kinds of questions we receive about docks and the regulations (or
lack thereof) which we rely upon for authority. Our research shows that we have
no present authority in City Code or in State rules in the following areas (see
attached matrix):
1. Maximum number of docks on vacant lots or developed parcels
(excepting marinas)
2. Minimum dock setback from property lines
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
3. Length of dock
4. Warning signage or lighting for docks.
We have also kept a log of the number and types of concerns we have received
(see attachment). Of the seventeen inquiries we have received seven related to
dock regulations including the number of docks; while eight related to dock
rental. In the case of dock rental, we have regulations to use for enforcement,
but we have not aggressively enforced these provisions: 1) as the magnitude of
the project has been considered to be beyond current resources; and 2)
difficulties associated with determining boat ownership.
ISSUES:
The Council should determine whether it desires regulations of one sort or
another to be established. If not, we would continue to use our current
guidelines. If the Council believes that some additional regulation would be
appropriate, it would be helpful to know if the Council desires policy guidelines or
ordinance provisions. The former are advisory, while the latter are enforceable.
If the Council desires that new policy or ordinances be prepared, it would be
helpful to receive direction regarding process; whether public input should be
solicited and how; whether the Lake Advisory Committee should be consulted or
if staff should simply prepare changes for Council consideration.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
If recommended guidelines are established, the City's costs are minimal. If the
Council elects to establish enforceable ordinance requirements then legal fees
and staff time will be added. It may be necessary to hire a seasonal position to
implement ordinance provisions on this topic.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Take no action which would continue our existing guidelines to the extent
they exist.
2. Direct the preparation of a policy(ies) or ordinance(s) and identify the topics
such as location of docs relative to others, setbacks, number per property,
etc.
RECOMMENDED As determined by the Council.
MOTION:
SCHEDULED CR 1 IMPROVEMENTS; 2) INSPECT THE PROPERTY FOR T
PURPOSES; 3) PR ED WITH THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT INCREM AL APPROACH
AGREEMENTS AS A NS OF BRINGING INITIAL WATER AND SE TO THE AREA; 4)
EXPLORE POTENTIAL AN XATION OF CREDIT RIVER PROPE WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OF
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP A THE RESIDENTS; 5) CONSI ANNEXATION OF THE
ABHE/SVOBODA PROPERTY AN ORK WITH SVOBOD 0 ADDRESS THE CODE VIOLATIONS
AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF T PROPER ,6) INITIATE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
SNELL FAMILY ABOUT DEVELOPMENT 0 HEI OPERTY IN THE FUTURE INCLUDING THE
USE OF PUDs; 7) EXPLORE CREATION OF A URE AREA AROUND MARKLEY LAKE BY A
CONSERVATION EASEMENT; 8) PURCHA RO TY ADJACENT TO MARKLEY LAKE; 9)
PROVIDE FOR WELLHEAD PROTECTI INCLUDING DING FROM WATER RATES IN THE
LONGER-TERM PICTURES; AND OT R STEPS AND ISS AS CITY STAFF MAY IDENTIFY.
Erickson: Clarified that one of e items in the motion is to purchase
should say to purchase, or ook into the possibility of purchase.
Hedberg: Replied the tion is to layout a process and steps to complete the aster plan and issues for
inclusion are those . ed.
VOTE: Aye y Haugen, Erickson, Hedberg and Millar. LeMair abstained due to his recuse QQt from the
topic. ~
Consider Approval of a Report Recommending a Process and Timeline for Preparing Recommenda-
tions Regarding Dock Location/Regulations.
Assistant City Engineer Poppler presented a proposed process which would include public input and
Lake Advisory Committee participation in development of dock regulations.
Comments:
LeMair: Will support. Stated that the presented process will lead us to a place to make an informed deci-
sion.
Hedberg: Commented the process seems coslly in terms of staff resources and out-of-pocket spending
and he is not convinced it will lead to a clear direction forward.
Millar: Commented it was a good plan but wonders if a couple of informal meetings would give the same
feedback and is uncertain it will bring a resolution that is any different from current practice.
Erickson: Stated the City needs to have a dock ordinance and the process and timeline is good. Asked if
the June 19 meeting would be a public hearing.
Boyles: Replied it would not be as formal as a public hearing.
Erickson: Asked if the meetings would be published, open for public input and whether or not the Council
could be present.
Boyles: Replied that the meeting can be posted and the Council can be present.
Erickson: Commented that announcements in the Wavelength and Prior Lake American would be suffi-
cient notification and people who are interested will be at the meetings.
Haugen: Stated the City has gone through this several times in the past five years and has always re-
sorted to the DNR guidelines. Believes we would go through the process and be where we are at and that
the process will be a waste of money. Noted that fluctuating lakeshore levels lead to an insolvable prob-
lems. Will vote to not spend the money.
LeMair: Commented that staff hours are part of doing business rather than additional time.
14
City Council Meeting Minutes
May 7,2007
Haugen: Agreed, but the time could be utilized on a different project.
LeMair: Stated the Council has wasted much time discussing it without coming to a conclusion and this
would allow us to come to a conclusion so it doesn't have to be addressed again.
Haugen: Noted that the Lake Advisory Committee went through a process and came up with a "no deci-
sion." Believes if we are going to have advisory committees, we ought to listen to them.
Hedberg: Stated he has spoken to the Lake Advisory Committee and appreciates the viewpoints and
processes they have gone through. Doesn't think there is a blueprint that will solve the problem forever,
but perhaps we could focus on an ordinance that includes a process for dispute resolution. Gave the ex-
ample of the White Bear Lake regulations that specify how to settle disputes. Such a regulation could give
residents a method to settle disputes without having to go to court. Stated he is not interested in spending
the money on this proposed process, but would like to find solution.
Haugen: Asked if the problem would have to be defined and parameters set if we are going to have some-
thing that leads to resolution of conflict.
Hedberg: Agreed. Believes a dock ordinance probably would mirror DNR guidelines and include a
mechanism for dispute resolution.
Haugen: Suggested the Lake Advisory Committee should propose recommendations for dispute resolu-
tion.
Pace: Stated she would like to explore what statutory authority the City has to do what White Bear Lake or
Minnetonka have done for dock regulations. Commented that even though the City may require mediation
or some kind of dispute resolution process, it does not necessarily mean the City would have the means to
enforce the judgment. Believes we should learn if we have the statutory authority and then come up with
regulations and process.
Millar: Agreed this would not be like arbitration where parties agree to a process. Would be nice to come
up with something where people would follow guidelines, but need to be able to enforce it.
Pace: Noted it should be easy to determine how they were able to get their authority.
Haugen: Stated it would be good to do the research and learn how they got the authority. Does not want
to throw money at this, but will not oppose an idea that may work.
Pace: Replied that the City can set up an adjudicative process (due process hearing) which helps in a civil
finding that a property owner violated the City's standards.
Erickson: Stated he has read the White Bear Lake regulations and they appear to be something that
could work for us. Wondered if the fact that the lakes are completely surrounded by the City would give the
City unusual enforcement abilities. Would like staff to look at the City's ability to enforce regulations and
give a copy of the White Bear Lake regulations to members of the City Attorney and Council for review.
Boyles: Stated there are two different approaches on the table - one is that we know what the problem is
and are just looking for a solution; and the second is that we don't know the problem and would like others
to tell us what the problem is so we can find the best solution. It is the Council's decision to determine
which approach will be taken.
Hedberg: Believes there should be public involvement for these kinds of questions. Also believes that
public involvement through the Lake Advisory Committee is more likely to have a more positive result if we
come up with a different approach. Having advance research about the authority and mechanisms for dis-
pute resolution would make the LAC process more meaningful and more likely to come to a good result.
MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO DIRECT STAFF TO PURSUE THE PROCESS AS
OUTLINED EXCEPT FOR THE COSTLY COMMUNICATIONS AND TO PREPARE INFORMATION
REGARDING AUTHORITIES, DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ENFORCEMENT IN THE EARLY STAGES
OF THE PROCESS.
15
City Council Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Haugen: Clarified that the focus is on the dispute resolution aspect and the authority to enforce anything.
Hedberg: Agreed. And added that the process of getting public engagement and discussion would have
more direction and focus if we have information about the authorities and enforcement ahead of time.
Haugen: Asked if the motion involved $11,500.
Hedberg: Does not want to spend out-of-pocket money and would want most of that eliminated.
Erickson: Clarified whether the Council would learn about authorities and enforcement at the May 15
meeting.
Pace: Replied it would take until the first meeting of June to research the topic.
Erickson: Asked to offer an amendment to the resolution to have a report from staff and the City Attorney
at the first June meeting and consider the remainder of items based upon that report. Asked Hedberg to
withdraw the motion until the report is received.
Boyles: Noted that a public meeting could not be conducted by the first Council meeting in June.
Haugen: Stated that the report could be received in June and no decision needed to be made beyond that
at this time.
Councilors Hedberg and LeMair withdrew the motion and second.
>
MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO DIRECT STAFF AND CITY ATTORNEY TO
RESEARCH AND PREPARE A REPORT ABOUT THE CITY'S AUTHORITY, DISPUTE RESOLUTION
AND ENFORCEMENT FOR DOCK REGULATION ORDINANCES FOR THE JUNE 4,2007, CITY
COUNCIL MEETING.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Erickson, Hedberg, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
No new business was brought before the Council at this time.
OTHER
Community Events
LeMair: Congratulated the Premiere Dance Academy on its Dads and Dolls performance at the State
Theatre. Stated that it would be presented the last weekend in May at the high school. Complimented the
organizers of the Rotary's DARE Bike-a-thon and noted that it raised twice as much money as planned.
Haugen: Noted it had the highest participation ever.
Erickson: Reminded the public of the Clean The Lake event on June 9. Stated the VFW Senior Luncheon
was held today.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further comments from Council members, a motion to adjourn was made by Millar and seconded
by LeMair. With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 11: 15 p.m.
(i1uJ~~)
Charlotte Green, Administrative Asst.
Frank
16
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MAY 7,2007
90
ROSS BINTNER, WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT RECOMMENDING A PROCESS
AND TIMELlNE FOR PREPARING RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DOCK LOCATION REGULATIONS.
Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to give feedback on a
proposed process to be implemented by the staff and Prior Lake Lake
Advisory Committee to consider development of potential dock placement
regulations. This process will include a public information meeting to gauge
citizen interest and opinion.
Historv
The potential regulation of docks has been a persistent issue in recent years
as parties to private civil disputes seek direction from the City for standards to
direct their dock placement.
Current Circumstances
The LAC has been directed to once again review the City's position on
regulation of private docks. This agenda item proposes a process to review
issues previously discussed at the LAC on the topic, take public comment on
the need for regulation, and create a report and recommendation for City
Council consideration. A tentative schedule for this process is presented
below:
LAC Meeting May 15, 7:30: LAC will receive a written report from staff and
discuss past dock issues, past LAC recommendations, and propose format for
notice and public information meeting. DNR and Sheriff will be invited to
participate.
LAC Meeting June 19, 5:00: Hold Public Information Meeting to garner input
on potential dock regulation. Identify most common issues; assess what
regulations would address the perceived issues.
LAC Meeting July 17, 4:30: LAC receives written report from staff
summarizing public meeting input offering alternative regulations for discussion
and offering implementation steps and cost. LAC formulates recommendation
for incorporation into staff report.
CC Meeting August 6, 6:30: Council receives written report with LAC
recommendations. LAC chair provides oral report. Council determines most
appropriate action.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
ISSUES:
Currently the City uses DNR guidelines as a recommendation in private dock
placement disputes; regulation of this issue would set a new level of city
involvement. Prior to the informational meeting on June 19th the City would
advertise using these methods: Press release to and official public notices in
Prior lake American, City wavelength publication, City cable channel, City
website, and direct mail to residents.
Information presented in press release and through city publications would
summarize the current City position on this issue and indicate that it is up for
review. Additional information would summarize typical types of dock
regulation in place in the Twin Cities metro area. The wavelength article and
mailing would encourage interested citizens to get involved and provide their
opinions in writing, on-line, or by participating in person at the meeting.
Information would be provided on the process and give dates that public input
would be accepted.
By presenting an overview of the topic and examples of the potential result of
the public process the City would hope to generate interest in the effort to get
a broad section of public input at the meeting.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Facilitating this process is estimated to take 120 hours of staff time over the
course of 4 months. Salary, benefits and overhead of $50 per hour equate to
an estimated cost of $6,000.00 to facilitate the process. Approximately 10,000
notices would go out at an average cost including postage and materials of
$0.55, totaling $5,500.00. The total cost for staff time and mailings totals
$11,500.00. Funds for this purpose are available from the contingency
budget.
Costs for potential regulation and enforcement resulting from this process
would be assessed in the report to City Council.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Authorize the staff and Lake Advisory Committee to proceed using the
process and timeline set forth herein.
2. Authorize the staff and Lake Advisory Committee to proceed using the
process and timeline set forth herein with amendments.
3. Take no action and provide staff with alternative direction.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
As determined appropriate by the City Council.
ReVicrd
Frank Boyles,
01
halleland lewis
nilan & johnson PA
Attorneys at Law/P.A.
600 U.S. Bank Plaza South
220 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4501
Office: 612.338.1838 Fax: 612.338.7858
www.halleland.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Council
Mayor James Haugen
Frank Boyles, City Manager
FROM:
Suesan Lea Pace, Esq.
Mark J. Girouard, Esq.
DATE:
July 6, 2007
RE:
Regulation of Docks on Prior Lake
At a recent meeting, the Prior Lake City Council discussed the City's authority to regulate the
placement of docks on Prior Lake. From this discussion, two primary questions emerged. First,
what is the City's authority to regulate the placement of docks? Second, can the City require
property owners to mediate disputes arising out of the placement of docks before bringing an
action in district court?
Although more detailed answers have been provided below, the results of research into these
issues can be summarized as follows. First, the City may regulate the placement of docks, but
that authority must be exercised in a manner that balances property owners' riparian rights
against the public interest. Second, the City may not require property owners to mediate their
disputes relating to the placement of docks prior to commencing an action in district court. An
argument can be made, however, that property owners can be required to first attempt to resolve
their dispute through available administrative procedures, such as variance procedures.
First Question Presented
What authority does the City have to regulate the placement of docks?
Discussion
Minnesota law grants cities the express authority to regulate the placement of docks. Section
412.221, subd. 12, provides as follows: "The council shall have power to establish harbor and
dock limits and by ordinance regulate the location, construction and use of piers, docks,
wharves, and boat houses on navigable waters and fix rates of wharfage..." (emphasis added).l
1 Although not defined in Section 412.221, the phrase "navigable waters" appears to have a broader
meaning in the context of riparian rights than it does in the context of the Army Corps of Engineers'
DN: 325489
This grant of authority is also evident in DNR permitting rules. For example, Rule 6115.0210
provides that DNR permits are required for docks, unless certain criteria are met. One of those
criteria is that the dock "is consistent with or allowed under local land use controls, as
determined by the local government land use authority." Minn. R. 6115.0210, Subp. 4(A)(4).
Indeed, even when a DNR permit is required, the dock must still be "consistent with water and
related land management plans and programs of local and regional governments." Id, Subp.
5(C).
The City's authority to regulate docks is, however, constrained by property owners' rights. The
owner of riparian land enjoys the right of access to water that is directly in front of his or her
waterfront property, and "title extends to the low-water mark." State by Head v. Slotness, 185
N.W.2d 530, 532 (Minn. 1971). Riparian rights include the right to build and maintain "docks
on and in front of' riparian land to the point of navigability. Id Further, a riparian owner "has a
right to make such use of the lake over its entire surface, in common with all other abutting
owners, provided such use is reasonable and does not unduly interfere with the exercise of
similar rights on the part of other abutting owners." Johnson v. Siefert, 100 N.W.2d 689, 697
(Minn. 1960). Riparian rights are subordinate to the public's rights in navigable waters. State v.
Kuluvar, 123 N.W.2d 699, 706 (Minn. 1963). Thus, as reflected by the express grant of power in
Section 412.221, riparian rights are "subject to government regulation in the public interest."
Bartell v. State, 284 N.W.2d 834,838 (Minn. 1979).
In a recent decision involving the placement of docks on Lake Minnetonka, the Minnesota Court
of Appeals addressed the balance between a municipalities' authority to regulate the placement
of docks and a landowner's riparian rights. See Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v.
Canning, 2006 WL 1738252 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 19,2006). The Cannings owned a home on
St. Albans Bay on Lake Minnetonka. Because of their property had converging side lot lines,
they owned only 12 feet of lake shore, on which a dock had been located since the 1930s. Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District ("LMCD") regulations required that authorized dock use areas
be determined by projecting a property's side lot lines into the lake, and then requiring a five foot
setback from those lines. Because of the odd shape of the Cannings' property, it was essentially
impossible for them to have a dock that would meet the setback requirements within the small
triangle that resulted from the extension of their side lot lines. The Cannings applied for a
variance from the setback requirement. The LMCD's board voted to deny the variance, but
before it had an opportunity to prepare findings, the Cannings withdrew their variance
application. The Cannings continued to use their dock, and the LMCD commenced an
enforcement action. The district court granted summary judgment to the LMCD, and the
Cannings appealed.
regulation of "navigable waters of the United States" under the federal Clean Water Act. For example, in
a 2002 decision involving the impact on riparian rights of the placement offill in Prior Lake, the
Minnesota Court of Appeals assumed that Prior Lake was a "navigable water" without analyzing whether
it met Corps of Engineers' standards. See Rixmann v. Speilman, 2002 WL 977360 (Minn. App. 2002).
Similarly, certain DNR rules treat the question of whether waters are "navigable" one of depth. See, e.g.,
Minn. R. 6115.0201, Subp. 4(A) (requiring that access channels built to reach navigable waters be no
more the four feet in depth).
DN: 325489
2
In reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment, the court of appeals noted that the
"rule of straight projection" used by the LMCD to determine riparian rights had been frowned
upon by commentators, but acknowledged that "no single method applies in every case." Id. at
*2. Instead, what was important was that "boundaries are drawn in a fair and equitable manner."
Id. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding that
"the LMCD's strict application of its regulations to [Cannings'] property and reluctance to
consider the equities involved appear to have seriously compromised [Cannings'] riparian
rights." Id. at *3. In remanding to the district court, the court of appeals instructed the district
court to "determine the extent of [the Cannings'] riparian rights subject to reasonable
enforcement ofLMCD regulations against [their] property in a manner that is fair and equitable,
while still addressing public safety concerns. Id.
In reaching its decision, the court reaffirmed that the LMCD (like the City) has the statutory
authority to regulate private docks for the benefit of the public and navigation. It also reaffirmed
the standards articulated above, noting that "because riparian rights are always subject to state
regulation in the public interest, a landowner's preexisting and continuing use of his or her
lakeshore property is not a lawful non-conforming use if the LMCD finds other factors, such as
public safety, more important." Id.
Two conclusions can be drawn from this decision. First, although courts recognize the right of
municipalities to regulate the placement of docks through zoning controls, they are likely to look
with disfavor on decisions based on strict and inflexible adherence to a method of determining
riparian rights? Second, whatever method a municipality uses to determine permitted dock use
areas, it must do so in a manner that accounts for the equities involved and, if consistent with
public safety concerns, preserves the property owner's riparian rights.
Second Question Presented
Whether the City can require property owners to mediate disputes arising out of the placement of
docks before bringing an action in district court?
Discussion
With respect to zoning matters, Section 462.361 provides that "[a]ny person aggrieved by an
ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order of a [municipality's] governing body or board of
adjustments and appeals acting pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364 may have such
ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order, reviewed by an appropriate remedy in the district
court." Minn. Stat. ~ 462.361, subd. 1 (emphasis added). "Only the court can divest itself of
jurisdiction which it has been granted through the legislature." Berens v. Berens, 443 N.W.2d
558,563 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). Thus, because the legislature has granted the courts jurisdiction
to hear appeals from zoning matters, the City may not interfere with that jurisdiction by requiring
2 The court acknowledged commentators' preference for a proportionate method based on the shape of the
lake over the "straight projection," noting that the former method was more likely to lead to equitable
results.
DN: 325489
3
property owners aggrieved by the City's zoning decision to engage in mediation before bringing
actions in district court.
That said, Section 462.361 also provides that a municipality may, in district court, "raise as a
defense the fact that the complaining party has not attempted to remedy the grievance" by use of
procedures available for that purpose under sections 462.351 to 462.364. Minn. Stat. S 462.361,
subd. 2. The procedures available under sections 462.351 to 462.364 include applications for
variances and conditional use permits, as well as appeals to the city council from the denial of
such applications. If a court finds that such remedies have not been exhausted, it can require the
complaining party to pursue those remedies, unless the court finds that the use of such remedies
would serve no useful purpose under the circumstances of the case. Id.
In this regard, the Ordinances of the White Bear Lake Conservation District (WBLCD) and
LMCD are instructive.3 Both ordinances include standards for determining authorized dock use
areas, as well as variance procedures for docks that do not meet the districts' respective
standards.4 The WBLCD ordinance also expressly requires that conflicts between property
owners "over the use of an authorized dock use area" should be resolved through the
Ordinance's licensing or variance procedures. WBLCD Ordinance 5, Part III, subd. 2. This
approach is consistent with the requirement in Section 462.361 that parties aggrieved by a city's
zoning decisions may be required to exhaust available administrative remedies, including
utilizing variance procedures.
If the City decides to regulate the placement of docks, a permitting process for those docks that
meet the standards that the City adopts, and a variance procedure for those that do not meet the
City's standards, would (1) provide a mechanism through which the City could balance owners'
riparian rights with public safety concerns, and (2) allow adjacent property owners who feel that
a neighbor's dock interferes with their own rights a venue in which to raise those concerns.
Thus, for example, if an owner of a riparian lot applied for a variance to build a dock that did not
meet with the City's standards, adjacent property owners would receive notice of, and have the
right to speak at, the Planning Commission's hearing on the variance application. The Planning
Commission hearing process would, therefore, provide a mechanism through which disputes
could, in effect, be "mediated."
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions you may have about these issues.
3 Copies ofthe WBLCD and LMCD ordinances are attached.
4 As noted above, although the Court of Appeals looked with disfavor on the LMCD's use oflot lines for
determining authorized dock use areas, it did not reject that approach or strike down the LMCD's
ordinance. Rather, it reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment because there were issues of
fact regarding whether the LMCD, during the variance process, reasonably applied its ordinance to, on the
one hand, determine the owners' riparian rights in a fair and equitable manner while, on the other hand,iaddressing public safety concerns.
DN: 325489
4
Docks and Access in Public Waters
Do I need a permit for my dock?*
No permit is needed to install, construct, or
reconstruct your dock on property you own if
you comply with the following:
. A dock is a narrow platform or structure
extending toward the water from the
shoreline. A dock may provide access to
moored watercraft or deeper water for
swimming, fishing, and other recreation.
. The structure, other than a watercraft lift
or watercraft canopy, is not more than 8
feet wide and is not combined with other
similar structures so as to create a larger
structure.
. The dock is no longer than needed to
achieve its intended use, including
reaching navigable water depth.
. The structure is not a hazard to naviga-
tion, health, or safety.
. The structure will allow the free flow of
water beneath it.
. The structure is not used or intended as a
marina.
. The structure is consistent with the
~ guidelines ofthe local unit of govern-
ment.
. Docks placed on rock-filled cribs are
located only on waters where the bed is
predominantly bedrock.
Restrictions on docks and
other structures*
You may not place a dock or other structure
in public waters if the structure:
. obstructs navigation or creates a hazard;
. is detrimental to fish or wildlife habitat
or is placed in a posted fish spawning
area;
. is intended to be used for human
habitation;
. includes walls, a roof, or sewage
facilities; or
. is located on property you do not own or
have rights to use.
If you have questions concerning the contents
of this brochure, contact your DNR Area
Hydrologist. See contact information on
reverse side.
"Based on Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6115.
What you should know about docks and
other water access structures
Docks and watercraft
lifts are commonly used
access structures on
Minnesota lakes and
rivers. If you own
waterfront property, a
temporary structure that
provides access to a lake
or river is preferred to a
permanent structure.
Permanent structures are
more likely to sustain ice
damage, and a snow-covered structure over the ice poses a hazard to recreation-
al vehicle users.
The blue box to the left lists installation guidelines for docks and access struc-
tures like boat lifts. These guidelines are intended to minimize impacts on water
resources and shoreline habitat. If you follow these guidelines, no permit is
needed from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Local units of
government may have additional dock rules related to public safety and other
local issues and should be contacted.
A shoreline owner may request a permit to install a dock wider than 8 feet. The
permit applicant must show a specific need and show that the wider dock
represents the minimal impact solution to that need. Docks serving single-
family homes or residential planned unit developments generally will not need a
dock wider than 8 feet. Public docks and mooring structures that are otherwise
not serving as a marina may need to be a wider structure and will be reviewed
individually. Docks that have no permit and that exceed the 8-foot-wide limit
are subject to enforcement action, including a citation, an order to remove the
dock, and fines for both the landowner and the dock installer.
Design and locate your dock and boat lift to avoid interfering with your neigh-
bor's use of the water. Docks and boat lifts should be placed so that mooring
and maneuvering of watercraft can normally be confined within the property
lines if they were extended into the water.
This dock is wider than 8 feet, so it needs a DNR permit. Refer to the blue box
at left for other guidelines relating to dock permitting.
5-2007
Page 1 of2
Docks and Access in Public Waters
41
51
8'
These two docks do not require a
permit because neither is more than 8
feet wide.
5'
wi~than 8'
12'
wider than 8'
10'
20'
The configurations above require a permit from the DNR because they are
wider than 8 feet.
If the dock is designed and used for
access to navigable water depth, a
DNR permit will rarely be needed. A
dock does not need a permit if it is
no more than 8 feet wide, is de-
signed to simply meet the need of
reaching navigable depths, and
follows the other guidelines on the
front of this brochure.
Intensive shoreland development causes deterioration of a lake's ecosystem. Dock installations and their associated uses
are factors in this deterioration. Studies of lakes in the Midwest show that docks and boatlifts may shade out important
aquatic plants and eliminate critical habitat where fish spawn, feed, grow, and find shelter from predators. Shoreline
views may also suffer when large dock systems are installed. Also, there is a growing concern about the private use of the
water surface if docks and associated structures extend too far, cover too much surface area, or span the entire owned
frontage. The proliferation of dock configurations and dimensions is a topic of concern to the DNR, lake associations,
anglers, lakehome owners, and others. Finding the appropriate balance between reasonable access and resource protection
requires collaboration by all ofthose interests and other citizens.
Purpose of the dock rules
Another issue of concern is any attempt to control access to a lake bed or water surface. Even when land ownership
extends into the lake bed, all who
own land abutting the water or gain
legal access have the right to use the
entire surface of the water. For this
reason, a dock configuration should
never close off part of the lake to
other users.
The removal or destruction of aquatic
plants is a regulated activity under the
Aquatic Plant Management Program.
Any destruction of emergent aquatic
vegetation is prohibited unless
authorized by an aquatic plant
management permit from the DNR.
DNR Contact Information
DNR Information Center
Twin Cities: (651) 296-6157
Minnesota toll free: 1-888-646-6367
Telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD): (651) 296-5484
TDD toll free: 1-800-657-3929
This information is available in an alternative format on request.
Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Natural Resources is available regardless of race, color, national origin, sex,
sexual orientation, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, age, or disabil-
ity. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St.
Paul, MN 55155-4049; or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC 20240.
DNR Waters website lists Area Hydrologists:
www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters
IF. 1I.~i
fA't1
~~
Ul\IW.~
DNR Waters in St. Paul:
500 Lafayette Road, Box 32
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 259-5700
If your lake access is on a shallow area
where emergent vegetation is common,
a boardwalk, floating walkway, or dock
across the vegetation may be needed
to reach open water.
5-2007
Page 2 of2
Question City State Comments
Ordinance Rules
1. What is the number of docks Not Not Minnesota Rules 6115.0170 defines docks, floating structures, marinas,
permitted on a parcel with a specified specified. mooring facilities, and temporary structures, all of which include docks.
dwelling unit? The definitions of a marina (6115.0170, subp. 20) and a mooring facility
(6115.0170, subp. 23a) reference 7 or more watercraft. MN Rules
Section 6115.0210, subp. 4, states no permitfrom the DNR is required
for a dock if it is not used or intended to be used as a marina. The rules
are silent as to the number of docks permitted per property.
2. What is the number of docks Not Not Same as above.
permitted on a vacant lot? specified specified
3. What is the maximum length Not Not MN Rules 6115.0210, subp. 3 A, prohibits the placement of docks if they
of a dock? specified specified will obstruct navigation or create a water safety hazard.
4. What is the required setback Not Not The rules do not address property line setbacks. In a document titled
from property lines for a specified specified "Docks and Access in Public Waters" the DNR states "Design and locate
dock? your dock and boat lift to avoid interfering with your neighbor's use of the
water. Docks and boat lifts should be placed so that mooring and
maneuvering of watercraft can normally be confined within the property
lines if they were extended into the water." (5-2007,
htto:/Ifiles.dnr.state. mn. us/oublications/waters/shoreland alterations water access. pdt)
5. Is warning signage permitted Not Not The rules neither require nor prohibit warning signs on docks.
on a dock? specified specified
6. What is the definition of a Not Not Neither the DNR nor the Zoning Ordinance define watercraft, although
watercraft? specified specified both include a definition of "watercraft canopy" (A structure or device no
larger than 240 square feet in area with a fabric covered roof that extends
See no more than 12" below the roof line and without walls or a floor that is
Section attached to or an integral part of the boat lift and/or track system, and is
1101.300 designed to shelter watercraft.) American Heritaqe Dictionary defines
(4) watercraft as "A boat or ship, or (used with a pl. verb) Water vehicles
considered as a group." (htto:/ldictionarv.reference.com/browse/watercraft).
Since it is not specifically defined, the Zoning Ordinance states "Words
or terms which are not defined in this Ordinance shall have their ordinary
and usual meaning."
7. What is the permitted number Not 6115.0170 The definitions of a marina (6115.0170, subp. 20) and a mooring facility
of watercraft? specified (6115.0170, subp. 23a) reference 7 or more watercraft. MN Rules
Section 6115.0210, subp. 4, states no permitfrom the DNR is required
for a dock if it is not used or intended to be used as a marina. Since a
marina is a commercial use, we use the number of 6 watercraft as
permitted in residential districts.
8. Must the 6 watercraft be 1101.1000 6115.0170 The question is not so much one of ownership as it is about whether or
owned by the property owners not the property owner is renting the dock space. Both MN Rules
or may they be owned by (6115.0170, subp. 20) and the Zoning Ordinance (1101.1000) define a
others? marina as a "commercial" establishment. If a property owner is renting
dock space, he/she is conducting a commercial operation, which is by
definition a marina.
9. What is the maximum width of Not 6115.0210 8 feet. Anything wider than 8 feet requires a permit from the DNR
a dock? specified (6115.0210, subp. 4 A (6).
10. Maya dock owner place his No. Not Publicly-owned property, whether dedicated right-of-way, park, or other
or her dock on publicly-owned 701.700 & specified land, is for the use of the general public. No individual may erect a
property? 702.800 structure, or use public property for private purposes without a specific
permit authorized under City Code.
11. Maya watercraft owner moor Not 6115.0210 MN Rule 6115.0210, subp. 5 and 6115.0211, subp. 4a, require a permit
or otherwise store the specified 6115.0211 from the DNR for the "construction, reconstruction, repair, or relocation
watercraft on a structure or of any structure or mooring facility on or in public waters." These
mooring facility below the sections list the specific criteria for granting such a permit. Among these
OHW? criteria is the requirement that the facility is "consistent with or aI/owed
under local land use controls, as determined by the local govemment
land use authority. "
12. What authority do the City 1104.307 6115.0210, MN Rule 6115.0210, subp. 5, requires a permit from the DNR for any
and/or the DNR have over (3) subp.5 commercial marina. Section 1104.307 (3) of the City Zoning Ordinance,
HOA slips/docks or lists the requirements for a homeowner's association mooring facility.
commercial marina Both the MN Rules and the City Zoning Ordinance regulate time, place
slips/docks? and manner; Le., location, number of slips, length and width of docks,
etc. Section 1104.307 (3, c) also requires" The lot used for controlled
access to public waters or as a recreation area must be jointly owned by
aI/ purchasers of lots in the subdivision or by aI/ purchasers of non-
riparian lots in the subdivision who are provided riparian access rights on
the access lots." Neither the City nor the DNR are involved in the
internal manaaement of associations or marinas.
2007 DOCK INQUIRIES
DATE NAME UESTION RESULT
3/14 Dock re u1ations Sent info
3/26 Buying empty lot on Lord Gave DNR info.
Street to rent out dock space.
Was told by another realtor it
was legal - no restrictions on
rentin sli s.
4/3 Dock lacement information Sent info.
4/11 Neighbor renting dock spaces. Faxed info.
Did not want to official report
at this time.
4/30 Island View Association Sent info.
would like to move docks
5/14/07 Has boat slip on PL wanted Gave her DNR
boatin info. web site for info
5/16/07 Dock/floats and renting slips Faxed info
to friends.
5/07 Confidential Multiple docks - placement - DNR/Sheriff
bullin nei hbors
5/17/07 Confidential Dock extension obstruction DNR/Sheriff
navi ation (Oakland beach)
5/23/07 Unknown Neighbors renting docks-
does not want to formally
report at this time. Candy
Cove area.
6/1 /07 Walk-in Young man just bought lake Info.
property and wants to rent
docks space - wanted
re ulations.
6/5/07 Confidential Neighbor using 2 docks- Will get back with
wants one removed er code. solution
6/7/07 Unknown Complaint on neighbor renting Pixie Point address
5 dock slips for $2,000 each.
Should not be running
business in neighborhood.
Parkin and noise com laints.
6/7/07 Confidential Complaint on 14958 Pixie Will return call
Point - renting dock slips. with solution.
Visitors tie up dogs and leave
- dogs bark all day and night.
Trash. Owner believes she is
within the law.
6/18 Confidential Grandson of property owner at
In uadona Beach is rentin
out dock space to friends for
$1,500 a piece.
6/18 . Concern of city-owned Outlot Forward on info.
A of Spring Brook Park.
Dock disputes.
6/18 Confidential Update on second dock