Laserfiche WebLink
w <br />in both properties when the 1975 zoning ordinance became effective <br />on January 1, 1975. Rogers had no interest’in the Rhode property <br />until he contracted for its purchase on September 9th or during the <br />early part of August, 1974, and by either of those dates Rogers had <br />lost control of the Becker property by contracting on August 1. <br />1974 to sell it to the Beckers. Therefore, Rogers never could have <br />legally joined the two properties in sole ownership. <br />In asserting this contention the Beckers rely on <br />I^dering v. Jo^son, (1976) 307 ^?inn. 315, 2.39 N.W. (2) 913. <br />Dederin^ is distinguishable because there two adjoining undeveloped <br />lots were owned in fee by the same party when the zoning ordinance <br />was adopted, because the court there relied on pollution avoidance <br />as an important factor warranting denial of a variance and because <br />the governing body had denied, rather than approved, the variance. <br />Coi II •n fee ownership of the two lots was ruled to be <br />a sound basis for denying of the variance but was/stated to pro­ <br />hibit the granting of a variance. The court there said at page <br />322: <br />••In denying a conditional-use permiti and variance <br />to appellant, who acquired a substandard lot with full <br />Minnesota. A county board calinbt arbitrarilj S^ny^n <br />applicant a variance from local zoning restrictions. <br />2d 45^?iqfiqT* Crystal. 283 Minn. 192. 167 M.W.Zd 45 (1969). However, where. ,is here, i.hc action.*; <br />based on substantial evidence which It considered in analyzing the proper future <br />course in this important and sensitive land-use <br />field, a court must uphold the board’s decision. <br />of Bloomington.267 Minn. 221, 125 N.W. 2d 846 (1964) <br />In CujfrV. Young, (1969) 285 Minri. 387, 173 N.W. (2) <br />4L0. the court mandated the allowance of a variance to a zoning <br />setback raqutramcnt after the council he,I denied the verlence. <br />There two lots had been owned by one party for a period after the <br />tonins setback ordinance was adopted and that owner conveye.l the <br />two lots to the plaintiff and another owner. The court pointed <br />-8- <br />JLil.