Laserfiche WebLink
FLOYD E. NELSON <br />DONALD A. MpRKEN <br />f R[OERICK L.THpR5p11 <br />JAMlS B. HANNAH <br />WI. TON E. MUNSLN <br />CLAY R. MOORE <br />C ONNOR F. SCHMID <br />VAS M. HIG GINS <br />LORENS O.BRYNESTAO <br />WOOUEURY H. AND R EWS <br />GEORGE R. A. JOHNSON <br />ROG[R ,. STAGED E RG <br />ANOPEW R. ( LARK <br />FRANK A. DVORAK <br />RDBCP, D. 515VOL0 <br />M ARVIN C. IN GBER <br />IRA NI P. JEVNE OI <br />GREGORY J.PULLE5 <br />MARTIN V. AY OELOT- <br />ROBERT 5. LEE <br />JOHN B. LUNOOUIST <br />JAM ES T.SWENSON <br />C AIC O. MADSON <br />MICHAEL 5. FROST <br />DONNA L RORACF <br />MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE <br />LAW OFFICES <br />IOOO (FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILOINU <br />MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 <br />TELEPHONE (b12) 333-134i <br />TELEX 29-0904 <br />March 11, 1980 <br />Mr. Al Olson <br />City Planner <br />Grono City Council <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Day, Minnesota 5532' <br />Mr. Bruce D. Malkerson <br />Attorney at Law <br />4344 IDS Center <br />Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 <br />Gentlemen: <br />Df COUNSL'L <br />HENRY C. MACKAt.. <br />T HOMAS P. <br />HE, 4E, <br />FNEDERICK H.STINCHr IELD119BI '%SO$ <br />PERRY R. MOGI: i 11894.1961� <br />�ONALO A. 'E5 41904-19131 <br />i—SE 1993' IY741 <br />CITY. OF, ORONO <br /># t4WIF " I <br />Re: Jack Rhode <br />1410 Bohns Point Road <br />D <br />My May 25, 1979 letter to Al Olson reflected my <br />opinion that the "statute of limitations" or period in which a <br />variance is effective is tolled while litigation involving the <br />same i.; in progress. In addition to the Massachusetts case <br />standing for that proposit-ion, Belfer v. Building Com'r of Boston, <br />294 N.E.2d 857 (1973), courts in Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware <br />and Missouri support the same general tolling principle. See <br />Tantimonaco v_. Zoniaa_Bd _ of Review of _Johnston, 102 R.I. 594, <br />232 A.2d 385 (1967); Preseault v. Wheel, Vt., 315 A.2d 247 (1974); <br />Shollburne, Inc. v. Roberts, Del., 238 A.2d 331 (1968) ; and <br />Krekeler v. St. Louis County Board of Zoning Adjust, Mo., 422 <br />S.W.2d 265 (1968). <br />It is our opinion that the Jason Decker lawsuit <br />and the suasequent Rhode lawsuit against the Hannahs and Mr. Stewart <br />(still in progress) have tolled the year's duration of Resolution <br />No. 851. Obviously, the year's period was meant to apply to <br />one who could take "dvantage of the variance, i.e. build. If he <br />or E' a did not act in a year, it would be reasonable to assume <br />waiver of any rights. However, in Mr. Rhode's case everything <br />he has done has been geared toward carrying out Resolution No. 851. <br />As of yet he has been unable to build and has not been in a position <br />to waive the benefit of Resolution No. 851 by lettinq it run its course. <br />