10-23-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A Thomas J. Barrel:. Esq. Acnl 12. 1995 * Page Two Tlic City has required me to apply for re-subdivision of Lots 1. 3. 4 and Outlet 1, betore it will consider issuing a building pe.nmil to my son. Tlie Cit>- has required me to present a current ^ •uirvcy of Lots 1.3, 4 and Outlot 1, showing h-ardcover. square leei and dimensions. In an etror. to avoid the delay and cost of litigation, I have tried to comply with the Cit}* s demand for re- subdivision of Lot I. pursuant to the City’s interpretation of Its 1984 Zoning Ordinance. All of the City' oftlciais, who have examinee* the suT- ey ol Lot 1 agree that it is in full womplionce (os pre.s^rtly platted) with the requirements of the 1984 Zoning Ordinance. Tlie application tor re- subdivision of Lot I, which I 'vas compelled to present to the City, was tabled at the ;ast Planninu Commission meetina in order to give m.e time to evaluate the appropriateness of applying for re-subdivision of Lot 3 xnd Outlot 1. I was advised at the meeting, that if I did not apply for rc-subdivision of Lot 3 at uhe same time as Lot 1,1 would never be able to do so later, nor could Lot 3 ever be legally eligible for a building peonit. APPROPBf ATF ORDINANCE A>D vPPl IC.VBLE LaW The applicable ordinance governing .area reqmrem.ents tor building on this type of property is Mimicipfll Zoning Ordinance sec. 10.25 subd.(6)(b)(I984). 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, serxiced by a sanitary sewer does not meet this and the other .minimum requiremenTs, the lot may be utilized for single family dwelling purposes without council approval if the are.a mc.asurements and width are within eighty percent i SQ%) of the Zoning Chapter requirements’ .Nliinicip.al Zoning Ordinance sec. 10.03 sub<J.(6)(a)(l). This type of language meaningless vmiess construed to "Gr.'mdfathcr" in previously lecordea lots that meet the requirements. Dhv v. Weight Counrv. 391 .N.W.2d 32 at 34 (Minn. App. 19M6). If the party seeking the perm.it meets all the standards presenhed in the ordinance, die council has no di.scretion to deny the perm.it. Its refusal to gram the pe.-rnii in such circumstancer. is arbitrac.' a.s a matter of law and mandamus will lie to compel the council to grant the permit. IjLi 34. Zoninu Orrim.mces are in derogation of the common law and should be construed strictly against the City luid in favor of t.he property owr.er. LL. at 35. In Dnv V Wrifhf County , a propeny owner petitioned the Coon to compel the Wnght County- Board of .Adjusiment.s to ried.are his property a "buildable lot" .and grant him a building permit for it. The properly 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 property owner was in full compliance with the ordinance under a grandfather clause and when these btiindards ore met the City Council has no discretion to deny the pernm.