Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Respondents' land area totaled 11.18 acres, enough acreage to legally subdivide the parcel into <br /> two conforming five-acre lots under current Orono zoning requirements. After the taking, the <br /> three lots in Block 1 continue to encompass more than one acre in size as required by the <br /> Orono zoning ordinance at the time the plat was filed in 1972. <br /> • <br /> The condemnation commission valued the taking as though it reduced the size of Lots <br /> 1, 2 and 3 of Block 1 of the Mark One plat. Appellant appealed that decision to the Hennepin <br /> • County District Court. Appellant filed a motion for Partial Summary Judgment, requesting the <br /> district court to find that the highest and best use of Parcel 29 is as a two conforming five-acre <br /> lots rather than as six lots and an outlot as delineated in the Mark One plat. The District Court <br /> • <br /> denied the County's motion. <br /> At trial, the parties stipulated that, if the District Court correctly determined the law of <br /> 0 the case, the condemnation award was correctly calculated by the condemnation commission. <br /> However, the Appellant County maintains that the District Court did not correctly determine <br /> the law to be applied to this case and reserved its right to appeal to this Court for a review of <br /> the District Court's legal decision. <br /> ISSUE <br /> • Did the change in Orono City Ordinances and the Respondents' actions of combining <br /> all the lots in the Mark One plat for tax purposes and to qualify for a building permit operate to <br /> eliminate Respondents' ability to develop the individual lots in that plat based on the city <br /> • <br /> ordinances and requirements that existed at the time of the plat as a matter of right? <br /> The trial court ruled NO. <br /> • It is from this ruling that the County appeals. <br /> 3 <br />