4300 Watertown - Condemnation Hearing Info

Home Browse Search

(Minn.1980). Such existing lawful uses are entitled to due process protection. Hooper at 141. • Similarly, Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.3 (c) protects a landowner when substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approval of the plat and that the owner would suffer substantial financial damage as a result of the ordinance. • Respondents did not use their property as a six-lot subdivision at the time the ordinance took effect. On the contrary, they purchased the property after the ordinance changed the • minimum lot size requirement to five acres and at the time of the purchase the property was not developed as a six-lot subdivision. Any activity towards proposed subdivision that Respondents claim they did, occurred after the effective date of the ordinance. Therefore, • Respondents are not entitled to a variance based on a due process protection for the non- conforming lawful use that existed prior to any changes resulting from an ordinance simply • because no such uses existed on property prior to enactment of Orono Ordinance 172 in 1975. Moreover, Respondents would be required to combine their lots to meet zoning requirements. When an owner of a non-conforming undeveloped lot also owns adjacent • undeveloped property, he must combine the lots under the "contiguous lot rule". Orono City Code, Section 10.03, subd.6.C. See also, Wheeler v.City of Wayzata, 533 N.W.2d 405, 410 (Minn.1995). Respondents rely on the City of St. Paul v. Rein Recreation, Inc., where the Court allowed the landowner to complete non-conforming development of his property. 298 N.W.2d • 46 (Minn.1980). In that case, the landowner obtained building permits for various marina structures as well as two high-rise buildings. When the city enacted an ordinance that • prohibited him from developing his project, he was allowed to continue the construction of any 12