Laserfiche WebLink
16. The Restrictive Covenant contains a covenant that completely restricted Kristi <br /> Roesler's ability to separately sell the Lake Parcel. <br /> 17. The Restrictive Covenant prohibited any use whatsoever of the Lake Parcel <br /> beyond use as lake access for the Off-lake Parcel. <br /> 18. The Restrictive Covenant purports to run with the land and Defendant alleges its <br /> binding upon Plaintiffs. <br /> 19. In 2007,Plaintiffs' purchased the Property from Aurora Loan Services, LLC. <br /> 20. In 2009, Minn. Stat. § 462.357 was amended to allow building on nonconforming <br /> . single lots of record located within a shoreland area, without variances from lot <br /> size requirements, provided that: "(1) all structure and septic system setback <br /> distance requirements can be met; (2) a Type 1 sewage treatment system <br /> consistent with Minnesota Rules, chaptcr 7080, can be installed or the lot is <br /> connected to a public sewer; and (3) the impervious surface coverage does not <br /> exceed 25 percent of the lot." <br /> 21. In 2013, Plaintiffs observed that the owner of Lot 9 commenced building on Lot <br /> 9. <br /> 22. The owner of Lot 9 is similarly situated as Plaintiffs' in that Lot 9 was used solely <br /> for lake access and dock purposes and the owner of Lot 9 owned a back lot with a <br /> residence. <br /> 23. The owner of Lot 9 was not required by Defendant to enter into a Special Lot <br /> Combination Agreement despite the fact that Defendant required Plaintiffs' <br /> predecessor-in-interest to restrict her ownership of the Lake Parcel to keep her <br /> dock. <br /> 24. In fact, it was later discovered by Plaintiffs that the owner of Lot 9 sold Lot 9 <br /> separately from his off-lake parcel for development purposes. <br /> 25. Thereafier, in mid-2013, Plaintiffs approached the city to obtain the necessary <br /> building permits to begin building a residence on the Lake Parcet. <br /> 26. Defendant informed Plaintiffs that they would not be allowed to build a residence <br /> on the Lake Parcel due to the Restrictive Covenants on the Property. <br /> 27. Defendant informed Plaintiffs that they were required to first submit a <br /> Subdivision Application, along with building plans for staff review and <br /> 3 <br />