Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> • <br /> ISSUE <br /> Should this Court grant partial summary judgment and rule that the highest <br /> • <br /> and best use of Parcel 29 is development as two, conforming residential lots rather <br /> than six, non-conforming lots? <br /> • ARGUMENT <br /> The County maintains that when Respondent combined the Mark One lots for <br /> • tax purposes, he effectively combined them for zoning purposes as well. Also, <br /> because Orono's zoning ordinance requires combination of adjacent, non- <br /> conforming lots under common ownership before a building permit can be issued for <br /> • <br /> the construction of a residence (even if the lots were previously uncombined), Parcel <br /> 29 should be valued as two 5-plus acre lots rather than six lots. <br /> • A. Standard of Review <br /> "[S]ummary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored <br /> procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the [rules of civil procedure] as <br /> • <br /> a whole, which are designed to 'secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive <br /> determination of every action.'" Celotex Corp. V. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). <br /> • Summary judgment is proper where there are no disputed issues of material <br /> fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. P. <br /> 56.03. The Court must view the evidence and the inferences which may be <br /> • <br /> ,reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving <br /> • 4 App. Page 7 of 35 <br />