Laserfiche WebLink
Q <br />Ns. Jeanne Mabusth <br />October 17, 1984 <br />Page 10 <br />fact that a court reviewing the <br />action of a municipal body may have <br />arrived at a different conclusion, <br />had it been a member of the body, <br />does not invalidate the judgment of <br />city officials if they acted in good <br />faith and within the broad discretion: <br />accorded them by statutes and the <br />relevant ordinances." Id. at <br />508-509. <br />'The Court has also expressed some hostility towards the <br />development of substandard parcels in at least one case. <br />In Dedering v. Johnson, 23�' N.h'.2d 913 (1976) , the <br />Minnesota Court upheld the refusal of a local government <br />to grart a variance to develop a substandard lot when <br />that lot had been held in common ownership with another <br />parcel in t:ie past. The Court was will.ino to read into <br />the local zoning ordinance a requirement that parcels <br />which had previously been held in common could not he <br />split and developed independently, even though no such <br />requirement was contained in the local ordinance. <br />Although the facts in the Dedering case are different <br />than the ones at present, we believe it indicates a <br />reluctance on the part of the Court to promote the <br />development of substandard lots. <br />For the reasons outlined above, we believe that Mr. <br />Fisk's request should be denied and ask the Council to <br />adopt an appropriate resolution to that effect. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />ell <br />Ronald H. Batty <br />RHB/dd <br />