City of Waco v. Dock
| Decision Date | 20 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | A19-1099 |
| Parties | City of Waconia, Respondent, v. Jayson Dock, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
Affirmed
Carver County District Court
George C. Hoff, Jared D. Shepherd, Hoff Barry, P.A., Eden Prairie, Minnesota (for respondent)
Mark W. Vyvyan, Pari I. McGarraugh, Fredrickson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellants)
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this appeal arising from a dispute over appellants' construction of a dock on Lake Waconia, appellants Jayson and Cristine Dock dispute the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent City of Waconia (the city) on all claims and grant of the city's request for a permanent injunction compelling appellants to remove the dock. Appellants argue that the district court erred in determining that: (1) the city ordinance banning permanent docks is valid despite the city not having complied with Minn. Stat. § 86B.205 (2018) and Minn. Stat. § 462.357 (2018); (2) the dock is "permanent" within the meaning of the ordinance; and (3) the city is not liable on appellants' claim of abuse of legal process as a matter of law. Appellants also argue on appeal that they have a vested right to the dock, an issue not decided by the district court. We affirm.
On July 28, 2017, the city commenced this action to enjoin appellants from constructing a permanent dock on appellants' lakeshore property and extending into Lake Waconia. Appellants counterclaimed for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to invalidate a city ordinance adopted by the city that prohibits the construction of permanent docks within the city. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties agreed that there were no genuine issues of material fact. Each argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court concluded that appellants' dock is prohibited by local ordinance and dismissed appellants' counterclaims. It ordered appellants to remove the dock.
Appellants own lakeshore property on Lake Waconia. The lake is bounded by three municipalities: the city, Waconia Township, and Laketown Township.
Appellants' property is located within the Waconia Landing Addition (Waconia Landing), a residential subdivision of the city abutting the southwest portion of the lake. Each property owner within Waconia Landing is a member of the Waconia LandingHomeowners Association (WLHA). WLHA owns outlot A, which is adjacent to appellants' property.
In 2014, appellants sued WLHA and several of its members over the placement of docks on outlot A, arguing that the docks created a safety hazard and interfered with appellants' riparian rights. The district court ultimately dismissed that lawsuit. In 2015, Carver County brought criminal charges against appellants for public nuisance relating to appellants' prior dock. Appellants were tried and acquitted of all charges in that prosecution. In 2016, appellants again sued WLHA, this time concerning the number of docks placed on the WLHA parcel. The district court dismissed the lawsuit based on the application of the doctrine of res judicata. It held that the 2014 dismissal of appellants' lawsuit barred the 2016 action. On appeal, this court affirmed the district court. Dock v. Waconia Landing Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., No. A17-0184, 2017 WL 5985389 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2017).
During all of this litigation, appellants and WLHA each urged the city to amend the city's shoreland regulations concerning dock placement. In March 2015, the city considered appellants' proposal to amend a zoning ordinance to regulate docks in the city's Shoreland Overlay District, but declined to adopt appellants' proposal. In April 2017, the city considered WLHA's request for adoption of a zoning ordinance that would amend the existing dock-placement regulations. The city declined to adopt the proposal. Following this denial, the city council instructed staff to research the regulation of docks, and directed "Staff and [the] City Attorney to create draft dock regulation ordinance language for Council consideration."
In November 2016, appellants hired Custom Boardwalks to construct a roughly-200-foot-long dock advertised as "permanent" and extending from the shoreline of appellants' property into Lake Waconia. Because the city council had yet to adopt any regulations concerning docks, a city employee informed Custom Boardwalks that it could proceed with the construction of the dock. Likewise, the department of natural resources (DNR) area hydrologist indicated to appellants that no special permit was needed to install the proposed dock. Construction of the dock commenced on June 19, 2017, when Custom Boardwalks began placing pilings for the dock in the lake.
On July 20, 2017, the city council held an emergency meeting to consider adopting an interim ordinance imposing a moratorium on the construction, erection, or placement of permanent docks on the shoreline of all public waters within the city while the city further studied dock regulation. The city ultimately adopted interim ordinance 705, which established a moratorium on any dock construction in the city for one year while the city reviewed its options to either prohibit permanent docks, enact a more comprehensive dock-placement regulation, or leave the placement of docks unregulated.
After adopting interim ordinance 705, the city ordered appellants to immediately halt the construction of their dock. Construction on the dock was stopped shortly thereafter. The city sued appellants for injunctive relief on July 28, 2017, and moved the district court for a temporary restraining order (TRO). On September 27, 2017, the district court denied the city's request for a TRO. Although it denied the city's request for a TRO, the district court noted in its order that appellants would proceed at their peril if they continued construction of the dock with the litigation pending.
Appellants chose to proceed with construction of their dock. According to Custom Boardwalk's product documents, the dock, which was nearly finished by mid-November 2017, "Sets on Permanently Embedded Steel Pilings," "Stays in Year-Round," and has a "25 year Boardwalk Warranty." The pilings are advertised by Custom Boardwalks as "hydrologically drilled deep into the lake . . . bottom to support [the] permanent Custom Boardwalks dock frame." The dock is constructed with "three-by-twelve lumber across the top." Although Custom Boardwalks has yet to seasonally remove any such dock, it contends that it could do so. Removal would take seven to ten days, require approximately six to eight people, and cost "a lot of money." It would require "a couple [of] machines and trucks," including equipment to torch the beams and cut them from the pilings. Replacing the dock in the succeeding spring would cost a "couple hundred thousand dollars."
On October 2, 2017, the city, purporting to act under its general police powers, adopted ordinance 707, regulating docks within the city. Ordinance 707 took effect on October 12, 2017, and specifically prohibits permanent docks in public waters from riparian lots within the city. It defines a permanent dock as "any Dock that is not a Seasonal Dock and is supported by pilings, retaining wall or other materials and associated with a permanent foundation that is either resting or embedded in the lake bottom and is designed to make relocation impracticable." A seasonal dock, on the other hand, is defined as "any Dock which is so designed and constructed that it may be removed from the Public Waters on a seasonal basis."
Following the adoption of ordinance 707, and on October 13, 2017, the city attorney sent a copy of ordinance 707 and a cease-and-desist letter to counsel for appellants. Appellants' counsel responded, stating that ordinance 707 is invalid and that, because no special permit was required by the DNR, appellants were legally entitled to construct their dock.
Appellants' dock was completed on November 14, 2017, and has not been removed.
On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court dismissed appellants' claim of abuse of process, granted summary judgment in favor of the city on all claims, and granted a permanent injunction compelling appellants to remove the dock.
This appeal followed.
At the outset, we reject appellants' argument that their abuse-of-legal-process claim against the city is viable. Appellants argue that the city's actions in adopting and enforcing ordinances 705 and 707 amount to actionable abuse of the legal process. Appellants seek money damages from the city. Appellants cite no case law in support of this argument. See In re Estate of Grote, 766 N.W.2d 82, 88 (Minn. App. 2009) (). And we find no legal authority that permits suits against a legislative body and for money damages in circumstances such as these.
We also reject appellants' vested-rights argument. Appellants argue on appeal that the district court "erred by awarding summary judgment when issues of fact remain" concerning their claim of entitlement to vested rights to construct the dock. The partiesexplicitly agreed in district court that there was no dispute of material fact. Appellants first asserted their vested-rights argument by letter to the district court after briefing and argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment. Appellants' counsel admits in the posthearing letter that "[t]he [district] [c]ourt asked the parties if there were any disputed facts in the Motions, and the parties agreed that there were not."
Appellants concede in their reply brief on appeal that their vested-rights argument was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial