Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> TABLE OF CONTENTS <br /> • Page <br /> Table of Authorities ii <br /> Statement of the Case 1 <br /> • <br /> Statement of Facts 1 <br /> Issue 3 <br /> • Argument 4 <br /> I. The trial court erroneously concluded that the highest and best use <br /> of Parcel 29 is residential subdivisions into six separate lots because <br /> it disregarded applicable Orono zoning ordinances that render <br /> • proposed subdivision impossible. 6 <br /> A. Respondent's property is unavailable for proposed six- <br /> lot subdivision under the Orono zoning ordinances in <br /> effect at the time of the taking. 8 <br /> A <br /> B. Granting of variance to Parcel 29 is highly improbable 11 <br /> II. Respondent's property must be considered as a single tract of <br /> land in calculating a just compensation for the taking of <br /> • 88,746 square feet for the widening of CSAH 6 14 <br /> Conclusion 16 <br /> Appendix <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • <br /> i <br />• <br />