2004_1018_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Neal Beets October 11,2004 Page 2 of 4 The Code's nuisance provision also provides that the City has the power to abate the nuisance and that the owner of the property is liable for the costs of abatement. The City may also place the costs of the abatement as an assessment to be paid with the property's taxes. The conlmon law presumption is that the fee of a landowner abutting a street extends to the center of the street and the public only has an easement for use of the land.' The established rule is that an adjoining landowner owns fee to the center of platted streets subject to the public's � t� �� , ` This means that unless it is shown that a public body acquired fee title to the land upon which a roadway lies, through condemnation or otherwise, the adjoining landowner retains ownership to that land under the common law presunlption or because the land is platted. Many of the streets in the City were dedicated to the City when the area was platted. This means that the land on which those streets lie is part of the abutting properties and is owned by the adjoining land owners. The public only has an easement on the property. For streets that were not platted, the presumption is that the adjoining property owners own to the centerline of those streets. In these instances, the nuisance provisions regarding weeds and grass apply to a property owner right up to the curb of tlle roadway because the person also owns the underlying fee to the land. The same analysis applies for requirements that property owners maintain public sidewalks on their property. Some roadways in the City exist on land that appears to have been purchased outright by the City, State of Minnesota, or Ramsey County. Along these routes, the abutting land owners only own the land to the property line, not to the curb of the roadway; it is the City, State, or County that actually owns the underlying fee up to the curb of the roadway. There are no Code provisions that require a person to mow the grass on boulevard property they do not own. We believe that such a requirement might be problematic because, in essence, it would require one property owner to trespass onto the property of another to comply with the ordinance. The fact the boulevard property upon which the trespass would occur is owned by the City, County, or State would not arguably overcome this legal obstacle. The City's nuisance ordinance provides a method for dealing with a property that is not mowed. That is for the City to abate the nuisance itself after specific notice provisions have been followed. The City cannot arguably require a land owner to assu�ile the City's power/obligation to abate a nuisance on land the property owner does not own. In short, the ' Rich v. City of Minneapolis, 35 N. W. 2(Minn. 1887). Pederson v. City of Rushford, 177 N. W. 943 (Minn. 1920); Kooreny v. Dumpier-Baird Mortuary, Inc., 291 N. W. 611 (Minn. 1940); and Kochevar v. Crty of Gilbert, 141 N. W,2d 24 (Minn. 1966).