Loading...
Memo Update 1711 1st St N .' , . . CITY OF HOPKINS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 15, 1993 TO: enning and City Council Members FROM: Kersten Elverum sing Coordinator RE: Update on 1711 1st Street North - Sanitary Sever and Water Main Services The attached report was prepared for the September 7, 1993 City Council Meeting but was continued due to lack of time for discussion. Since the time the report was prepared, there has been little progress in the matter. . Ms. Kline did submit the attached letter from her attorney advising her of her rights to continue to use the septic system without permission from the adjoining property owners and of her right to have water and sewer services installed if she so desires. Additionally, it is his opinion that if she elects to request the installation of services, the full cost cannot be assessed against her property. Staff has attempted to determine how Ms. Kline intends to proceed with this matter, however, she has not provided the answer to this question. She has said that her attorney will be at the September 21, 1993 Council Meeting to represent her interests. Unless an agreeable solution is identified through discussion at the meeting, staff upholds the recommendation to refer the two parties to the West Suburban Mediation Center for mediation services. . "----.-..--,,- "-~ --~~, ----- ,-- .; ,. . Keith E. Simons,P.A. . ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 401 NORWEST BANK BUILDING September 2, 1993 1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343 (612) 935-1697 Ms. Grace Kline 1711 - 1st Street North Hopkins, MN 55343 Dear Grace: This will confirm our recent meeting concerning your questions with regard to your septic system. It is my understanding that your home is located on the easterly portion of Lots 16, 17 and 18, and that a portion of your septic system is located on Lot 16. You have resided ( in your home for some thirty five years and apparently the home and septic system have been in place for approximately sixty two years. At the time your home and septic system were constructed, all of Lots 16, 17 and 18 were owned by the same person who later constructed a home or homes on the . westerly portions of those lots and the lots were subsequently subdivided into separate ownerships. It is my understanding that subsequent owners of Lots 16 have been aware of the location and use of, the septic system on Lot 16 by you and your predecessors in title, including the current owner prior to his purchase of Lot 16. You have indicated that certain issues haveaxisen regarding your use and ownership of the septic system which you have called to my attention. It is my opinion based upon the above facts that you are the owner of the easement for the use of the septic system which is caburden'on the~right"ctitle and iriterest6f the owners of Lot 16. In other words, the ownership of Lot 16 is subject to your rights to use and maintain your septic system. This easement is a right of ownership in an interest in land just like your ownership of your house and the land that its located on. As such, you do not have to negotiate with the neighbor or anyone else for your continued use and maintenance of the septic system. You need not, and should not negotiate with your neighbor for the continued exercise and ownership of these rights. If the neighbor wishes to acquire these rights then, as with any property interest, you should be paid for these rights and only if you choose to sell them. Needless to say, as . long as you need the septic system for the house the price of these rights would undoubtedly be exceedingly high. '"- , . Q . September 2, 1993 Kline cont. page 2 Based upon the above facts, these rights, of course, were all under common ownership prior to the original owner subdividing the easterly portion of the lots. When this was done your predecessor in ownership acquired the rights to the septic system and the remainder of Lot 16 was subject to those rights. When the original owner sold Lot 16 he could sell no more than he owned and all of his successors in title took Lot 16 subject to the easement for use of septic system benefiting your property. Frankly, I am a bit surprised after sixty two years that anybody would imagine any differently. There is of course the issue of why municipal services have not been furnished to your property. I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong but it is my understanding that the City has a clear obligation to treat your property like any 6therproperty in the City and to furnish connections to your property. If, and when this is done your property of course would be subject to a special assessment, however, . the assessment can not exceed the "benefit" to the property. The benefit has to do with the increased value of your property resulting from the availability of the municipal services. Since, as I understand it, your property is a nonconforming use and can not be expanded or replaced if destroyed thus, leaving the land itself relatively valueless it would be my impression that the value of any "benefit" and thus, the amount of any assessment to your property would have to be quite limited. Obviously this is an appraisal issue but if it becomes relevant and it appears that the City is seeking to assess your property at the same rate as other property would be normally be assessed, you definitely should consider contestipg the assessment. You may wish to consider demanding that the City provide these services since I believe you are entitled to equal treatment as other property owners and the additional expense of the services and the hook-up may be worth not having to depend upon your well and septic system. Please let me know i~ you should have any additional questions about this letter or any other aspect of this matter. . -----------~--~ --~.- .. . , -, - September 2, 1993 . . Kline cont. page 3 V;;}f~ Keith E. Simons KES/1cr . .