Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> decision• is based on Section 31.203 of Ordinance <br /> This Court's 172, <br /> City of Orono, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, which clearly <br /> • states that single family detached dwellings may be built on other lots that <br /> do not meet the new five acre zoning requirement if three conditions are <br /> met. (There is no dispute that the six lots involved do in fact meet these <br /> • <br /> requirements.) <br /> As stated by the County of Hennepin, ". . . [defendant Johnson] is <br /> • presumed to have purchased it with full knowledge of the manner in which <br /> it was zoned by the ordinance." See Howard v. City of Roseville, 70 <br /> N.W.2d at 408 (Minn. 1955). This rule also applies to the County of <br /> • <br /> Hennepin, and they must be presumed to have full knowledge of the <br /> ordinances as passed by the City of Orono. They cannot avoid this reality <br /> • <br /> by suggesting that owner Johnson has waived his rights thereunder <br /> because he was taxed for all the land involved under a single tax <br /> • statement and/or because he had secured status under the "Green Acres" <br /> tax status. <br /> Lastly, a review of Hennepin County's Exhibits 1 - 6 clearly shows <br /> • <br /> that the Johnson residence is built upon a lot which is in excess of one <br /> acre and meets all of the requirements of Section 31 .203 of the <br />• aforementioned Ordinance 172. (Further, the Court notes, by a review of <br /> the exhibits, that all of the lots that have been developed on both sides of <br /> • 3 <br /> App.Page 26 of 35 <br />