Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> structure that was already in process. However, he was not able to obtain a variance for a <br /> • second high-rise building, because its construction had not started and landowner did not <br /> demonstrate any expenditures in furtherance of that project. <br /> Similarly, Respondents did not start a subdivision process on their property nor did <br /> • <br /> they spend any funds in furtherance of subdivision development. On the contrary, <br /> Respondents combined all the lots for tax, residential and farming purposes and continued this <br /> • use for over twenty years. The fact that Respondents installed telephone hookups on the <br /> property is not enough to demonstrate that they really intended to develop the property as a <br /> residential subdivision. See, State v. Malecker, 120 N.W.2d 36 (Minn.1963) (property was <br /> • <br /> one tract of land for the purposes of land value where the property was subdivided into lots and <br /> the streets had been graded and graveled but no sewers, water, or gas was available and no <br /> utilities had been installed other than electricity.); Sheldon v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry.Co, <br /> 13 N.W. 134 (Minn.1882) (where a property owner continued to use his land as a farm, the <br /> property would be considered as one tract notwithstanding the fact that property had been <br /> • <br /> platted). <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • 13 <br />