#2286 Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren June 23, 1997 page 2 The two new parcels depicted on the enclosed Survey satisfy the 20-acre and the 500-foot-width requirements of Minn. Stat. §462.358, subd. 4b(6), and the corresponding provision in the Orono City Code. The State law is simple and unambiguous. If its criteria are satisfied, a city's subdivision regulations do not apply. Similarly, the clear and unambiguous language of cc §11.03.65.a excepts parcels meeting the 20-acre and 500-foot-width requirements from the definition of a subdivision and the need for subdivision approval. See Littlefield v. City of Afton, 785 F.2d 596, 602-03 (8th Cir. 1986) (discussing a "minor subdivision" process not requiring platting). Alternatively, the two new parcels result from "the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary ... " under cc §11.03.65.c. To the best of my knowledge, the two new lots easily meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In your February 4 Memorandum you cite five reasons for the City staff's determination that subdividing Parcel A on the enclosed Survey would constitute a Class III Subdivision. The first reason is that Bayside Road must be dedicated to the public. I was advised by a City staff member two days after your Memorandum that "the City's subdivision regulations say if there is a public road within the boundaries of a property that has not been dedicated to the public, it has to be dedicated". This is obviously the case for new roads, but I can find no such requirement in the city Code for existing public roads. Nonetheless, my client will be happy to dedicate the affected portion of Bayside Road by deed, using the description prepared by the County, which will have the same legal effectiveness as a dedication in a plat. There is simply no authority in the City Code for requiring a plat for this purpose. The same holds true for the second and third reasons cited in your Memorandum --there is no authority in the City Code requiring a plat to make the riparian dedication or drainage easement, but my client will be happy to grant these public rights by deed. Each of the three property divisions described on the enclosed list required public easement rights, but the City permitted those rights to be created by private grant rather than by dedication on a plat. The fourth reason stated in your Memorandum for requiring a plat is based on the faulty premise that we desire or are required to create a separate lot for the land north of Bayside Road. I was recently advised by a staff member that when a public road bisects