Laserfiche WebLink
38. At the City Council meeting on October 14, 2013, Defendant again reiterated that <br /> but for the Restrictive Covenant, Plaintiffs would be able to build on the Lake <br /> Parcel and sell the Off-lake Parcel. <br /> 39. Further, Defendant again admitted on the record that the only thing stopping <br /> Plaintiffs' from building on the Lake Parcel was the Restrictive Covenant and that <br /> Plaintiffs' submitted building plans meet all other requirements. <br /> 40. The City Council voted 3-1 on a motion to direct city staff to draft a resolution for <br /> denial of the requested subdivision to extinguish the agreement. <br /> 41. On October 28, 2013, the City Council voted 3-0, with 2 abstaining, on the <br /> resolution denying Plaintiffs' Subdivision Application. <br /> 42. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are aggrieved by a decision by the City of <br /> Orono, and will be ineparably harmed by its wrongful actions, and are entitled to <br /> declaratory, equitable and other relief, terminating the Restrictive Covenant, and <br /> an order directing Defendant to approve Plaintiffs' application and building plans. <br /> COUNTI <br /> DECLARATORY JUDGMENT <br /> 43. Plaintiffs' restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 42 of the Complaint. <br /> 44. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 555 and Rule 57 of the Minnesota Rules <br /> of Civil Procedure, an actual controversy exists regarding the parties' rights and <br /> obligations related to the Restrictive Covenant. ' <br /> 45. As such Plaintiffs request that the Court declare the rights, status and interest of <br /> the parties herein and that the Restrictive Covenant is unenforceable and void as a <br /> matter of law. <br /> 46. Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory judgment from the Court finding Defendant's <br /> action of exacting Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest to sign the Restrictive <br /> Covenant was without any basis in law and is unenforceable and void. <br /> 47. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment from the Court finding that the Lake <br /> Parcel is a buildable lot, directing Defendant to approve Plaintiffs' application <br /> and/or administratively dissolve the Restrictive Covenant, and directing <br /> Defendant to provide Plaintiffs with reasonably convenient and suitable access. <br /> 5 <br />