Laserfiche WebLink
Page 18 WATER TALK Summer/Fall 1995 <br /> Court Corner Court Corner Court Corner Court Corner <br /> DISTRICT COURT UPHOLDS PROHIBITION OF SALE OF <br /> CONTIGUOUS LOTS <br /> 1=1 - SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION NEGATES EFFECT <br /> by Ed Fick, DNR Shoreland Hydrologist <br /> 0 Hubbard County District Court upheld Hubbard County's decision to prohibit the I <br /> sale of nonconforming contiguous lots held in the same ownership in a decision filed <br /> 5 on April 7, 1995. The owners, Lloyd and Joreen Lundstrom, filed the case when 5 <br /> Hubbard County denied them a variance to sell one of the two adjacent lots located �3 <br /> on Lake Belle Taine. <br /> 0 <br /> 14 The Lundstrom's bought two adjacent 100-foot wide lots at different times. The g <br /> substandard lots became nonconforming when the Hubbard County shoreland 1. <br /> ® ordinance was amended in 1991 to include the revised statewide standards for the 0 <br /> o management of shoreland areas developed by the Department of Natural Resources <br /> (DNR) in 1989. The revised ordinance stated that nonconforming contiguous lots <br /> must be combined to meet the minimum lot size requirements before they can be sold 5 <br /> ® <br /> in <br /> or developed. The minimum lot size for Lake Belle Tae,a Recreational Development 1 <br /> 0 Lake under DNR's classification system, requires a lot width of 150 feet and an area 0 <br /> of 40,000 square feet. The Lundstrom's applied for a variance to sell their <br /> undeveloped lot but the application was denied by the Hubbard County Board of g <br /> EAdjustment. The Lundstrom's then sued the County and enjoined the Minnesota P. <br /> Department of Natural Resources in the lawsuit filed in the District Court. <br /> 0 0 <br /> The court found that the county's shoreland ordinance does not violate the <br /> constitutional standards governing the taking of property without compensation or <br /> o providing equal protection under the law. The court determined that while the <br /> 9 plaintiffs can demonstrate a loss in the value of the undeveloped lot, the diminution 0 <br /> in property value cannot, by itself, establish a taking. 0 <br /> b � <br /> In summary, the court decided that although the ordinance has "some negative N. <br /> ® economic impact" and "frustrates plaintiffs' distinctive investment-backed 0 <br /> 0 expectations", other courts, including the Supreme Court. have upheld land use <br /> regulations even when they"destroyed or adversely affected recognized real property <br /> interests"in cases where there is a rationally related legitimate government interest. -rt,- <br /> 0 DNR's Shoreland Management Program Coordinator Ed Fick feels this court decision <br /> significantly strengthens this part of the shoreland management program and <br /> commended Assistant Attorney General Don Kannas,representing the Department g <br /> Eof Natural Resources for the State ofMtnnesota,andAttorneyJay Squires.representing a <br /> ® Hubbard County, for their work on this case. <br /> However, Fick reports that the Minnesota State Legislature with the concurrence of <br /> 0 <br /> 14 the Governor subsequently enacted a law,Senate File Number 1444,which sets aside <br /> ® the findings of this court. The legislative act states". . . the counties of Crow Wing, g <br /> Hubbard.Cass.and Morrison may allow the sale or transfer,as a separate parcel,of <br /> a lot within shoreland . . . that is located wholly within the Mississippi headwaters <br /> ...continued on page 19 <br /> za 00 ;.unoC .uauat,uo0 iunnop iozzzoo mop .u2>LuzoC, lune° <br />