4300 Watertown - Condemnation Hearing Info

Home Browse Search

• N.W.2d 36, 38 (Minn.1963). While the Respondents' use of the land for a residence and • general farming may or may not affect the land value, existing zoning requirements may not be regarded so lightly. A use that is currently prohibited under zoning or land use laws or regulations may be the highest and best use if it is reasonably probable that the use will be • allowed in the near future. J.D.Perovich, Annotation, Admissibility of Evidence of Proposed or Possible Subdivision or Platting of Condemned Land on Issue of Value in Eminent Domain • Proceedings, 26 A.L.R. 3d 780 (1969). The courts must exclude consideration of purely speculative uses to which the property might be adaptable but which are unavailable at the time of the taking. Id. • A. Respondents' property is unavailable for proposed six- lot subdivision under the Orono zoning ordinances in effect at the time of the taking. Respondents rely on Enright v.City of Bloomington, 203 N.W.2d 369, (Minn. 1973). In Enright, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that a city council has no discretion to deny a permit to a party applying for a conditional use where the property meets all of the standards prescribed in the ordinance. 203 N.W.2d at 397. The Court further stated that "conditional use permits" are not granted as a matter of right. Id. at 398. Failure to meet any one or more i of the conditions would bar the property owner from obtaining a permit. Id. (in dissent). Here, Respondents fail to meet all of the requirements for conditional use permit under the • applicable ordinances. In 1975 city of Orono adopted Ordinance 172 that raised the minimum lot size for single-family dwelling purposes from one acre to five acres. At the same time, it excluded a certain lots already of record. Specifically, Section 31.203 of Ordinance 172 provides that one 8