My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-15-1998 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1998
>
06-15-1998 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2023 1:20:25 PM
Creation date
7/27/2023 1:14:00 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
285
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mr. Alan P. Olson <br />Page 2 <br />August 23f 1983 <br />Thomas N. Traff and Janet L. Traff, <br />husband and wife <br />260 Inland Lane <br />Plymouth, MN 55447 <br />David S, Steingas and L-ane M. Steingas <br />3825 Virginia Avenue <br />Wayzata, MN 55391 <br />64 <br />William Crear III <br />56 Westwood Drive <br />Long Lake, MN 55356 <br />I would suggest that you contact each of the above grantees to determine what <br />their desires are with regard to the above-described lots. <br />If the City's position is that the ordinance voids Mr. Ahern's sale of these <br />lots retroactively and after the fact of their having been conveyed to other <br />persons or restricts the rights of the new owners with regard to their use, <br />building, and future transfer of the lots as separate parcels, it is my <br />opinion that the ordinance is unconstitutional as retroactive legislation, an <br />unreasonable restriction on an owner's ri^t to the use of and the transfer <br />of his property, and the "taking" of property without just coiipensation, ^c <br />ordinance also exceeds the authority given - to local municipalities with <br />regard to zoning and land use by the Minnesota Statutes, in so far as it <br />purports to bar the sale of separately owned parcels and force the <br />combination of separately owned parcels into one record lot, resulting in <br />restrictions with regard to the sale, the use and building on those lots. <br />Regarding the unconstitutional retroactive effect of the ordinance, it is <br />significant that the moratorium ordinance (No. 238) and extension thereof <br />(No. 241) did not bar the sale of these lots, and accordingly Mr, Ahern's <br />conveyances were entirely valid under the then existing laws. <br />On the other hand, if the City treats these lots as separately owned parcels, <br />as it should, each one • of the above-named owners should be notified and <br />offered the various options with regard to their separate properties, I <br />assume these owners will be given extensions of time for filing as they have <br />not been previously notified and sent forms.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.