Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> r 120N.W.2d 36 (Minn.1963); Sheldon v. <br /> value of such property. State v. Malecker, ( ), <br /> • Minneapolis & St.Louis Ry.Co., 13 N.W.134 (Minn.1882). <br /> I. The trial court erroneously concluded that the highest <br /> • and best use of Parcel 29 is residential subdivision into six <br /> separate lots because it disregarded applicable Orono zoning <br /> ordinances that render proposed subdivision impossible. <br /> • Any owner has the right to devote his property to any lawful use. In re Improvement <br /> of Third St., St. Paul, 225 N.W.92, 93 (Minn.1929). However, an existing, valid zoning <br /> ordinance which limits those uses may be considered in proving market value. State by Lord <br /> • <br /> v. Pahl, 95 N.W. 2d 85, 90 (Minn.1959). <br /> Applicable zoning would permit a maximum of two dwelling units on Respondents' <br /> • property under a planned residential development pursuant to Orono Ordinance 172. Contrary <br /> to Respondents' desires, they may not construct dwelling units on all six lots based on the <br /> original plat designed in 1972. First of all, the six lots are less than the current Orono five- <br /> acre minimum lot size requirement. Even though this requirement became effective in 1975, <br /> three years after the lots were platted, the change occurred before Respondent bought the land. <br /> At the time of the purchase there was no development consistent with original plat <br /> design. Moreover, the lots do not fall within the "existing lots of record" exception outlined <br /> in the Section 31.203 of the Ordinance. This section states: <br /> 31.203. In "R" Districts of Greater Than One <br /> Acre. A lot of record in any "R" District <br /> in the City in excess of one acre, which <br /> does not meet the requirements of this <br /> • Zoning Code as to area or width only, <br /> 6 <br />