4300 Watertown - Condemnation Hearing Info

Home Browse Search

• II. Respondents' property must be considered as a single tract of land in calculating a just compensation for the taking of 88,746 square feet for the improvement of • CSAH 6. A land appraiser may use a development cost approach to determine the value of the • property that has a potential for residential subdivision. Ramsey v. Miller, 316 N.W.2d 917 (Minn.1982). However, the courts require some showing of minimal practicality. Id. A landowner will be able to use development cost approach in valuing his property if he can • show 1) the land is ripe for development; 2) the landowner can reasonably expect to secure the necessary zoning and other permits required for proposed development; and 3) the • development will not take place at too remote a time. Id. at 922. Respondent meets none of the requirements. In its current condition, Respondents' property is not ripe for development. It is used • exclusively for Respondents' own purposes as their primary residence and for farming. Moreover, Respondents will not be able to obtain either a conditional-use permit or a variance • based on current Orono land-use regulations. Even though Respondents believe they would be able to secure building permits from Orono to build on the substandard lots, it is not reasonably probable and should not be considered. See, Olson v. United States, 292 U.S.246, r 257 (U.S.1934). In fact, Respondents plan no subdivision development any time soon. Any proposed residential subdivision is speculative at this point and therefore the court must • disregard it. Condemnation value must be based on reality, not dreams. Port Authority of City of St.Paul, v. Englund, 464 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn.App.1991). In addition and significantly, the Orono City Code also addresses at least one zoning • ramification of the combination of lots for tax purposes. Section 11.03.66.a.2 (Appendix at 3) • 14