09-18-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Thoinas J. Baneit. Esq. Apnl 12. Pace Two Tlic Cir>’ has required nae to apply for re-subdivision of Lots I, 3. 4 and Outiot 1, betore it will consider issuing a building permit to rny son. Tlie Cit>' has required me to present a current ^ Mirv'cy of Lots 1. 3. 4 and Ovtlot 1, showing hardcover, square feet and dimensions. In an eltort TO avoid the delay and cost of litigation. I have med to comply with the City's demand for re- .suhdivisicn of Lor !. pursu.mt to the City’s iuterprention of its ld84 Zoning Ordinance. All of the Citv’ oftlcials, who have examined the suAey ot Lot I agree that it is in full compliance (as presently platted.) with the requirements of the 1984 Zoning Ordinance. Tlie .ipplication lor re- subdivision of Lot 1, which I was compelled to present to the City, was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting in order to give me time to e'. aluate the appropriateness of anplving for re*subdivision ot Lot 3 and Outlet 1. 1 was advised at the meeting, that if I did not apply tor rc-siibdivision of Lot 3 at the same time as Lot I, I would never be able to do so later, nor could Lot 3 ever be legally eligible for a building pemiit. a PPROPRIATF ORDINAVrE AND .\PPT ICABLE LAW The applicable ordinance governing .irea requirements for building on this type of property is Municipal Zoning Ordinance sec. 10.25 subd.(6)(b)(1984). It designates a minimum lot area requirement of 1/2 acre. The City of Orono has a "grandfather provision" in its Zoning Ordinance. It provides that "If an e.xisting "Lot of Record", in an "R" District, serviced by a sanitary sewer does not meet this and the other minimum requirementx, the lot may be utilized for single family dwelling purposes without council approval if the area measurements and width are within eighty percent (80%) of the Zoning Chapter requirements". .Municipal Zoning Ordinance sec. 10.03 subd.(6X*)(l)* This type of language is meaningless unless construed to "Grandfather" in previously recorded lots that meet the requirement.^. n«v v. Wright County. 391 .N.\V.2d 32 at 34 (Minn. App. 19H6). If the p«irty seeking the permit meets all the standards prescribed in the ordinance, the council has no di.iretion to deny the permit. Its refusal to grant the permit in such circumstances is arbitrary' a.s a matter of law and mandamus will lie to compel the council to grant the permit. llL, 34. Zoning Ordinances are in derogation of the common law and should be construed strictly against the City and in favor of the property owner. LL« ot35. In Hav V Wrifh^ roiintv. a property' owr.er petitioned the Coun to compel the Wright County' Board of Adjusiment.s tn declare his property' a "buildable lot" and grant him a building permit for it. Tlie property owner argued that the Wright County Ordinance on Zoning had a grandfather clau.se. deeming his property buildable by law. The Court found that the propeity ow ner was in full compliance with the ordinance under a grandfather douse and when these standards are met the City Council has no discretion to deny the permit.