Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in both properties when the 1975 zoning; ordinance became effective on January 1, 1975. Rogers had no interest- in the Rhode property until he contracted for its purchase on September 9th or during the early part of Aug;usL, 1974, and by either of those dates Rogers had lost control of the Becker properL, by contracting; on August- 1, 1974 to sell it to the Beckers. Therefore, Rogers never cou'1 have legally joined the Lwo properties in sole ownership. In asserting; this contention the Beckers rely on llederim,_v. Johnson, (1976) 307 Vinn. 315, 2.39 N.W. (2) 913. Uedering is disLinguishable because there two adjoining undeveloped lots were owned in fee by the same party when the zoning ordinance was adopted, because the court there relied on pollution avoidance as an important factor warranting; denial of a variance -nd because the governing body had denied, rathei than approved, tale variance. Conmion fee ownership of the two lots was ruled to be not a sound basis for denying ( the variance but was/stated to pro- hibit the granting of a valiance. The court there said at page 322: "In denying; a conditional -use permit. and variance to appellant, who acquired it substandard lot with full knowledge of ita deficient size, the Isanti County Board of Commissioners was furthering, the purpose of Lite shorelands provisions of that county*s zoning; ordinance and the shorelands policy of the state of Minnesota. A county hoard cannot arui.trarily deny an applicant a variance from local coning restrictions. See, Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 1.67 N.W. 2d 45 (1969) . Nourever, where, is here, t he act inns of the county hoard are based on substantial evidence which it considered in analyzing; the Proper future coure in this important .and sensitive land-ttse field, a court must uphuld Lhe board's decision. See, Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 125 N.W. 2d 346 (1964). In Curry v. Young, (1969) 285 Minn. 387, 113 N.N. (2) 410, the court mandated Lhe allowance of a variance to a zoning setback requirement after the council had denied the variance. Thera two lots had been owned by one party for it period after the zoning; setback c-rditiance was adopted at 1 t.hat owner conveyed Lhe two lots to the plaintiff And another owner. The court pointed