Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> ARGUMENT <br /> Respondents raise several points in their brief with which Appellant disagrees both <br /> factually and as a matter of law. <br /> In their statement of facts, Respondents note that the trial court's Memorandum of May <br /> • <br /> 27, 1999 stated that no dispute exists that the six lots of Mark One "do in fact meet the <br /> requirements set out in Ordinance 172." This is incorrect. Appellant's seriously question <br /> whether these lots meet those requirements and there is no evidence in the record that they do. It <br /> is clear that they do not have the area necessary to meet the set-back requirements currently in <br /> effect in Orono and in effect at the time Respondents purchased the land in 1975. <br /> • Respondents claim that the legal description in the Petition that initiated this action is <br /> somehow dispositive of the legal issue raised in this appeal. This is not so. Legal descriptions <br /> can be written in many ways. There is no single way to write a legal description of a proposed <br /> I• <br /> taking in an eminent domain proceeding. The manner in which technicians for Hennepin County <br /> chose to describe the taking so that it could be recorded has no effect on the legal status of the <br />• property described. Rather, the goal is to describe the taking simply and accurately so the legal <br /> status of the described property can be understood by the public, that is, that Hennepin County <br /> owns a highway easement over the described land. The choice of ways to describe the taking <br /> does not affect the City of Orono's treatment of the property or response to a request to develop <br /> it in any way. The Orono Planning Commission or City Council is not bound by a county <br /> technician's decision to refer to a recorded plat when describing the taking. <br />• <br /> Respondents also aver (without supporting evidence) that the combination of the lots in <br /> the Mark One plat "in no way was needed for a [building] permit"to construct their residence in <br />• 1977. This is not the case. Mike Gaffron of the City of Orono specifically stated that the <br /> 1 <br />