Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />P. <br />r <br />& <br />I <br />f«On <br />It|fe‘ <br />E 4 <br />POP^flH k4iilK *1P lS •-; 1 <br />wear Lana North U« completad .-jo that -jubdiv is ions north of Rolli-.jo <br />Maadows Sacond Addition are accorded access. Tj allow Waat to now <br />foreclooe the extension of a road built on an easement dedicated to <br />public uee would render the plat which lie filed with the City <br />meaningless. <br />2 . wnbodv haft_fltaRdlnq Jiy_ClUlJllOOflft-Ulft Cltlli-BIOPOafid <br />actifiOJU <br />Mr. Wear may not challenge the reasonableness of the <br />requited dedication after he filed the plat which Included the <br />dedication with the City Otono. lirean V. Cit2-ac <br />ciyatfll, 421 N.w.2d 391 (Minn. ct. App. 19UU) • in CiYatil <br />the City required a developer to dedicate a portion of the proposed <br />subdivision for future uae as a frontage roac in order to gain plat <br />approval. The developer attempted to .submit a “draff final plat. <br />The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that Crystal Green lacked <br />standing to challenge the dedication reasoning: <br />Developers mtist challenge dedications <br />prior to final plat approval and <br />registration In order to assure <br />finality of dedication, give <br />municipalIties an opportunity to -hange <br />the requirements if the requiremencs <br />ate unreasonable, and prevent <br />nunicipelities from being sued by <br />developers when the only remedy <br />sveilable to a losing municipality Is <br />payment. <br />Id. St 395. <br />Ju«t aa In C*»tal.CUMi>, «aae lacks sLandlM to cl.aUongn <br />tha CUy oC OiuiWa dedication tagi'-tainanls. woafa lawiult would <br />dlstupC tha finaUty conta«platad by Minn. Stat. $S0S.»1. "aar was <br />J