Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> council had no discretion to deny the permit when the landowner met all the standards <br /> • prescribed in the ordinance and the ordinance did not require the landowner prove housing and <br /> sanitary setbacks. 391 N.W.2d at 34. <br /> Unlike the ordinance in Day, Section 31.203 of Ordinance 172 specifically requires <br /> • <br /> compliance with other applicable ordinances. Since Respondents fail to meet these <br /> requirements, they do not qualify for a conditional use permit. The court must disregard <br /> • Respondents' proposed six lot subdivision of Parcel 29 for the purposes of condemnation <br /> award, because Respondents' plan is totally speculative and unavailable under current Orono <br /> land use regulations. <br /> • <br /> B. Granting of variance to Parcel 29 is highly improbable. <br /> Respondents may still introduce into evidence the proposed six-lot subdivision of Parcel <br />• 29 if they can show with a reasonable probability that the ordinance will be changed in the near <br /> future or they would obtain a variance for the non-conforming use. State by Lord v. Pahl, 95 <br /> N.W.2d 85 (Minn.1959). There is no evidence that Orono will change the requirements of <br />• <br /> Ordinance 172 in the near future. In addition, granting a variance to Respondents' proposed <br /> non-conforming use of the property is highly unlikely. <br />• While a "special-use permit" allows a property owner to put his property to a use <br /> which the ordinance expressly permits, a "variance" allows him to use his property in a <br /> manner forbidden by an ordinance. Holasek v. Village of Medina, 226 N.W.2d 900 <br /> (Minn.1975). A landowner will receive a variance for the non-conforming use of this property <br /> if such use existed at the time the ordinance took effect. Hooper v. City of St.Paul, 353 <br />• N.W.2d 138 (Minn.1984); City of St. Paul v. Rein Recreation, Inc., 298 N.W.2d 46 <br />• 11 <br />