Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject PacketPETER J. PUSTORINO WILLIAM R. PEDERSON LOUIS R. TILTON JON P. PARRINGTON PUSTORINO & PEOERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 CORNELIA BUILDING 4005 WEST 65TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS . MINNESOTA 55435 TELEPHONE (612) 925-3001 Mr. Richard Lorge 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, Minnesota 55315 July 21, 1 982 fm~@~ow rn~ /( 1 JlJ. 23 . JD C~IT~Y --=-o F~O--■-R-ON....Jo"--"' RE: Lorge vs. City of Orono Our Fi 1 e : 5 7 9 8 Dear Mr. Lorge: This letter will confirm our phone conversation of July 21 wherein I advised that the City of Orono will make available for your inspection at their offices the various documents that they are able to locate .relative to your requests in y our letter of July 7, 1982. As I advised, due to time constraints and the fact that Mr. Allen Olson, the City Planner,. is out of the office on vacation, I am not representing to you that the documents provided are in any way complete. Of course, should further documents relative to these matters be discovered at some later date we will then make them available for your inspection. I am also enclosing at this time a p hotocopy of the Minnesota case of Dedering vs. Johnson, 239N.W.2d 913 (1976) which we discussed at the pre-trial conference before Judge Lord. JPP/kao enc; cc: Mr. Bruce Malkerson Ms. Mabus th ✓ :9:t:•:~ON /? ~ c_::7 /'(_ d u.__\/ ~ -f(,( -- P. Parrington LJ TO: Walter R. Benson FROM: Alan P. Olson DATE: June 24, 1982 SUBJECT: Lorge Legal Matters CONFIDENTIAL MATTER IN LITIGATION Mr. Jon Parrington and myself met Mr. Lorge in Judge Miles Lord's chambers this morning for a pre-trial conference. The judge was pushing for some kind of settlement, as he apparently always does. Without considering the legal issues, from a practical standpoint, Judge Lord did not seem overly s:ympathetic with variance denial. He noted it was for a single family residence rather than any kind of multiples. His only question was "how many other 60' wide lots in the area are developed?" Lorge's stated position is to gain the right to build on his Lot #3, not to win damages. He now says he wants to live there. He showed us a sketch similar to the first one presented to the City Council. The result of our conference was that Mr. Lorge was advised to pursue his administrative and legal remedies. His first step is to return to the City Council (Zoning Board of Review) with an appeal of his variance denial. If the denial is upheld, he will then likely file a State District Court action to have the denial overturned, rather than proceed with the Federal actions. Lorge was told that the City Council makes the zoning decisions and that neither Parrington nor I could say whether or not the Council would change its mind in this instance. In fact, we told him that the Council would likely reaffirm the denial. We did guarantee Lorge a hearing on his request. Consequently, Mr. Lorge will be scheduled for a Zoning Board of Review hearing during the regular Council meeting of July 26, 1982. ROGER HENNESSY AGENCY HENNESSY BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX I EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 PHONE: 474-411 l July 15, 1982 Mr. Walter R. Benson City Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, J\1N 55323 Re: Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge vs. City of Orono, et al Dear Mr. Benson: James T. Thome, CPCU In response to your letter and request of May 24, 1982, I am enclosing a copy of a letter received by us which was addressed to Stewart Smith Mid America, Inc. in Chicago. As you can see, their response is the same as predicted in Stewart Smith's earli-.:r letter. As mentioned in the enclosed, the carrier that is responsible in a "claims made" policy is the one who has a policy in force at the time the suit is brought, and, in this s-e, the LM:CIT program. Please call on me if you would like t discuss tbis furtner. I / ' ' I I Sine . \e:J..r I / ~r ;~::0;;;;;-- ? JRR:rem Enclosure cc: Bruce D. Malkerson Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty, Ltd. 4344 IDS Tower Minneapolis, :MN 55402 U'·; ! ; s " z MIDLAND INSURANCE COMPANY July 7, 1982 Stewart Smith Mid America, Inc. 125 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Attention: Greg Tabaazynaki RE: Midland Insured: City of Orono Midland Policy f: PO -346055 Subject : Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge vs. City of Orono, et al. Midland Claim I : C -01514 Gentlemen: This will acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated June 21, 1982 attaching various claim materials relevant to the sub­ ject matter. At this particular time, we wish to advise your office that this claim would not be covered under Midland's Public Officials Liability Policy. The captioned policy was in force from 1/12/76 to 1/12/79. As you know, our policy is a claims made policy and would only provide coverage for claims made during the policy period. Since this claim waa obviously made after Midland's policy had expired, there would be no coverage for same. Additionally, it was noted that the insured's current Public Officials Liability carrier has assumed the responsibility for this claim and has in fact answered the Complaint. We would recommend that this present carrier continue to handle this law suit under its present policy. If you have any questions concerning Midland's position in this matter, please contact the writer. Very truly yours, Kenneth E. Brockman Property/Casualty Supervisor Corporate Claims KEB/hc July 7, 1982 Mr. Allen P. Olson City Planner City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: #581 Var i a nc e Application -2697 Casco Point Road Dear Mr. Olson: Enclosed is a drawing indicating the approximate placement of a home on the referenced property at the east end of the property as described in my letter of June 29, 1982. I assume you will send me a copy of the agenda for the scheduled Council meeting on Monday, July 26, 1982. Sincerely, ~ ~ d J 4n Jc_,, Richard J. Lorge ff 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, MN 55315 RJL:mg Enclosure cc: Jon Parrington \' ' I 1. I I \! I 1·1:1·1.l/'lr 1 ,l.1i 01' ::1,n•11v \' r ----.,_ LIJJl 20~Ll7-2J , , • ·; J • u .,. -------~ I L / 'JI i 1' ., ,_,I ) ' • • . )-• ' 7·7--..... 1 L O ... I ' • ,.!_..,/ ';J ,•, J~,,-,,.'j '..,, • \ /I (,,\',:]'(ill\•.:/ ., I ..,. '' /; -.. --~!' .~, . I •·j I I I 'J -~~-i-------.... : :: ,LL ,,·, · I ' --·--/ ---...1-~~ ' \ ·, ' . ~ ' --... ____ --. .-. 'I , . -.. ·-----,ct;<. ·-. : .. !_ ( 1 ..... -•. -.... ----1 · , . al ,- ,.. , --· ("")-;:~=~c::7- ::;1 (iuil 0 ~ ·@ II l'-n r:-;;i o , <D uuu ro {a Cl ~ .,e ~ o~---uuu L ~---·2 ( ,/ \) );. \I\ ('\ C) .~!, . ->L __ "'~A"<.... ;-~--' ,.. .-. •. -.. _ I . ' ,, ..., ,· . -------~ C . > \,,) ' --... . ... ,''' \ '•,,, \'' ~ t\ , < -. ) I .._ . . .,. , . -... , h \, .... . ' ' . ---' ,, ;, -P«o,.,,,,!' , , .• ~ ,,:, jq; • :'/ I t•q\\H. \ I ~ \ ,·••1' , ,, ~)~; :,· .. ,:. 1 !\ ' ,, ' • u ' , .,, .. , i c 1 . , ( , . " i~ L (, ,-·· I\ . ' I '., !•l~ " .,~·'"' ,•' . . '. ' . ), '! ~ 1 ,I ~ ~ .,J. \,1 I I l · r• ~ Sl.an,}L; 1liJ' 1 1 ·/1 ~' IJ,, ,I ' ' _, ' '}..1 " ,' ~"I ' ''\ • ,0 . • •-. • I ' • l; . ' I ,,''r •ln-'/'-;~ ·:-..______ I[ ----~ " ~ \ ,~-ti • ,,, ,7, -------, ..____ --....__ I ! ,. ... ; l 'C .....___ . ' . ' I ~~ • 1.'-0 ~ft v,.t-~(a.ilQ~ ·:-------kl .. fl' ,l,\>~ ·1'1· (}~o LI. ru, ~ --. ,, ' . ,, 19,~L(I vd I fl I . Ii ~ t3 '( ;/ I 5°0 0 p I ', , J ,· f' 1) l /.,I I, /~ (\: ·fl' l o i:J {·o I s· r LJ I it · I L,1 1 s 1 11 I ~ -~ 1 "5' ·v •' I 1 f r ~ 1/1 / 1) ,, , -";,~ 0 ,, . ' J " -~ -.11,. -6, . ,, ~ ; ' p~,vawt4'i I /L't; I I''. I 'I I ''/ ',;J'l .l /'y th.'\ t " /lJ ····.il -; ,·1 i?6" 1,1 I·, il l 1·11,: un (\ 1:0 1·1·,,r.L 1 ':.• ,1;,,:i1L·, Ll.1 11 nr I\ :.J\lt-V1I _.' ol' U1 .. , .. ,,,!-.1·\11:1 ,1 1· Ll1:1L Cv1rt oJ' !;.)Vu1 ·(11111n1 i_(1l 1,1 .·t 1,,i, ,.i ,,, l,l\..'l)blllp .\.l'l llnrl'1J il1i111 ;11 :o ',,dt, 0r llte '.,tit i1.,·l1 s,l ll,11 ·!,Jl1,11, dut1L:J'Ll.1:;I /tj :·,i1Li 1;~; fli11.dn11ln,· 1)11 L/111 :;1 )1(•1·,, o(' ·11,1 .. L1.1,',w 1LL lliu J)(Jint 01· ~riL,HJ<.!•'ll -~n ,:if ' 111dri :11.,11·,J 1..1Ll1 u ll11l• d1 •JJiJ 11 ' 1 1 ,; ),1 • I l,,\ \,.''.\.'1 1,1 ,d 90 r,rnt ~ouLhw·.:~1tL:i'l :·, 1rw:1 1 ~l \\'L \:l lit 1·l :!!I. 1,1 ;1·l.1 :1i, 1·,·c,1 11 I.ht, So11 Ll:\./u/iLc:t1·ly • 1 ,1 1..,,L L ·l :., :iµf'111f\ Pt1rk; Ll1>:111;,1 .1uur.r.-.:•.tt 1 L.ii'l ." 1iu 1··,llrd ,~\1 11 :i:11:.I '.i1J ul.\1\.,ll~l.fi 1•l.,Y l\ne ol' l.J:lt l.>4 und its Southeust- ,:,-1.,,11 ,lt ,11 1 .. ) tl\O ~iouLt1\1u:il,1d ·1 L\nl:) 0 1· C11:;c(1 !'olrit 1tn1H I (1'0 1·11 ·uLJ_y n 1·,H 1n .~v flllUfJ)j ti1enrrn ;ioutherly a.Loni::: aaid ,1 - ,1.1.,,,11,111 1·1:: l \1\1) ol' C11:11:,~ Polr,l (\.()till (() lL:i p,:il;H 111 ' J1,t ,,r ;,u(•l.\011 11\lh ll ll(;IJ ilr111,;n r.l/.1r 11ll.,,l \./ith and 150 feat -Sout h- \ l _·, 11 ,!ll .)IJ J',;•I r1L 1·i 11 hl i,n,•L::ll rl'l:i il, t.l,1J 0 '.10 ULl!1-11:,\.,:1 ·1" \ln,: 0 1· 1,•1\tl i.ul 1.J/, t,nd iL11 ~i o~1L\1u1:6t.c~rly extonsion; then~o .. ,1,:i I ;· 1,·,1·q\~0 \. 1dLl1 ~•ni t! :1CJ \1l)1wo:n.u 1•l:1 J.l 11c: of' '.,.1' 1.)1, ::11ri lt:1 S rn1ll1 ui::,L1 :1·l.v . :iKL1:1ns lo11 to suid•shqrti -j thenca , .1 ,:, 1 1 ,1lu11 1\ :,1>1d :.il.or.i Lil ,l.111.; poi111. 1)~· li .. 11 l1 :rl11,:, •1 1111 l.111.: lr H·11LJon of 1111. bq 1Llln (.(:J/ ii' uny, theroon, an'd ull "' , I ' -· 1' U\ 11 .,., '" .. ,. , .,., , '," """" I ,.,,,,, or or, :. ,., d \ "11 11, • ' • • fi _ ~ ... I , . I •• l,U / /4.~{l'/;__: /_//-/ . , ,. •.-.' )-tiu C-o r-don H, Cof'rin Hol;~~ I I ir 1 11,. r· k i:: r ( •\ I r l I C' 11 l •\f r, ,, ·--.. _ .J n \ \. , .. TO: Walter R. Benson FROM: Alan P. Olson, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1982 SUBJECT: #581 Richard Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road - Zoning Variance Appeal On September 2, 1980, Mr. Lorge formally applied for a lot width variance to construct a single family residence on his property legally described as Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision #265. On February 11, 1981, Council adopted resolution #1246 denying the requested iot width variance and other variances not requested but determined by Council to be required in order to build a residence on Lot 3. On March 3, 1982, the City was served with a lawsuit by Mr. Lorge alleging various complaints. The matter is in litigation. As a part of that litigation, Mr. Lorge has been advised to address his adminstrative remedies which begin with a formal appeal of the variance. That appeal is the subject of this appearance before the City Council. Mr. Lorge has requested that this matter be heard at approximately 9:00 or 9:30 PM on July 26, 1982, during the regular Council meeting. July 7, 1982 Mr. Allen P. Olson City Planner City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: #581 Variance Application -2697 Casco Point Road Dear Mr. Olson: Enclosed is a drawing indicating the approximate placement of a home on the referenced property at the east end of the property as described in my letter of June 29, 1982. I assume you will send me a copy of the agenda for the scheduled Council meeting on Monday, July 26, 1982. Sincerely, Richard J. Lorge 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, MN 55315 RJL:mg Enclosure cc: Jon Parrington C -. : "-,' . :, -' _, q_ --1 .- ;... I I : I I ~ 1 • .,. i ; ( I .. .,, ,;;:,? r-,/ . .;., :--. /·-~OSI' t -J ~ ~-' --------· -tr ,, _.,,.,· I -..,--;-__ .. -- ., ) I, ----, t V, ~ !- \ ,":) JL. ,, r '... 1.' -- :_ _, - ;;, :.. :.. --•t: :: J l"..:I I .c .... ;:J 0 Cf1 .... ~ <::I c..... a] co ... 0 ~ -,.4 -I .-I a:J ·::::: :::: :_ =-::: .., - ::; ;- :n Cl ::: '..1- : ..: ::: :.. 0 ..,J C X ~ "":"=~:..,i:':'7--1 -..; ...:: .., ·,; ,c - :, - C ·rl :::: -: :_ ·- ,...; .:: " r. . ' - __, ,--::J ---. - July 1, 1982 Richard J. Lorge 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, MN 55315 CITY of ORONO- Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minn,~sota 5532:1 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka ~Variance Application -2697 Casco Point Road Dear Mr. Lorge: I am in receipt of your June 29, 1982 letter. This is to confirm that you will have a place on the City Council agenda for their meeting scheduled on' Monday, July 26, 1982, which begins at 7:00 PM. I had expected you to send a drawing or plan of your current request along with your letter. Such a plan will be necessary for the Council to understand the details of your request. The plan and/or anything else you wish the City Council to review should be received in my office not later than the Monday prior (July 19th) in order to be included in the Council's information packet. cc: Jon Parrington BUILDING&. ZONING -473-7357 • ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE -473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS -473-7359 ASSESS I''«; June 29, 1982 Mr. Alan P. Olson Village Planner P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota· 55323 Ref: Civ 4-82-139 Dear Mr. Olson In a pre-trial conference before Judge Miles Lord in the referenced action, Judge Lord strongly urged that we bring the matter of this controversy before the Orono Village Council again. You, Mr. Parrington, and I agreed to this action. This letter formally requests a meeting before the Council and brings forth new or additional information for the Council to consider. 1. Financial difficulties have resulted in the loss of the farm in Carver County. We are now renters. This farm was acquired in trade for the house on Casco Point. Our loss is linked to the circumstances surrounding Lot 3 in Casco Point (Aud. Sub 265). 2. Because of the foregoing, we wish only to build a single family residence on Lot 3 for our home. 3. Specifically we propose: a. The home would be built toward the road and not between the existing homes. b. The driveway and parking area would be as close to street level as possible and provide entry to a two car garage at that level. c. Water from buildings (house and garage) would be directed to underground storage, which may also serve as a heat energy storage, and held depending on water level in the current drain system. A simple float switch would determine if water from the storage is released to the drain. If the drain is full, no water is released. When the float goes down, the stored water is released. The tentative schedule for an informal meeting with the Council is Monday, July 26, 1982. It is my understanding that you will confirm this day and time. Sincerely, iYi/4,ul j. £,t y<-f91ll) Richard J. ~e ~ 1 16750 Halsey Avenue Carver, Minnesota 55315 cc: Mr. Jon Parrington Pustorino & Pederson 200 Cornelia Bldg. 4005 West 65th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1246 A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES REQUESTED BY RICHARD LORGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATEL AT 2697 CASCO POINT ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Richard Lorge has applied for a lot width variance to permit construction of a new single family residence on Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by some future buyer of Lot 3; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; comments and petitions submitted by neighborhood citizens; and letters and comments made by the applicant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot width variance (Section 34.552) for Lot 3, and denies the other required variances for which no applications were made, which variances are lot width variance (Section 34.552) for Lots 3 and 4, lot area variance (Section 34.552) for Lot 4, side setback (Section 34.552) for Lot 4, and development of substandard lots of record-held in common owner­ ship (Section 31.202) for Lots 3 and 4, based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: 1. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential District which has the following minimum lot requirements: Section 34.552 Lot Area Lot Width Front Setback Lake Setback Side Setback 21,780 s.f. 100 ft. 30 ft. 75 ft. 10 ft. 2. Lot 3 is deficient in regards to lot area and lot width requirements as follows: Lot 3 actual area is 19,641 s.f. -short 2,139 s.f. (10%) Lot 3 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) Pagel of 6 3. Lot 4 is also deficient in regards to lot area and Lot width requirements as follows: Lot 4 actual area is 20,202 s.f. -short 1,578 s.f. (7%) Lot 4 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) 4. Lot 4 contains a residence which is deficient in regards to required setbacks as follows: Actual lake setback 64 ft. -short 11 ft. (15%) North side setback 6 ft. -short 4 ft. (40%) 5. Lorge has failed to apply for a variance for side yard setback for the house of Lot 4. 6. Lorge has failed to apply for a variance from the lot area requirements of the Zoning Code for Lots 3 and 4. 7. Lot 3 was owned in common with abutting Lot 4 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by applicant Lorge from 1972 until May, 1980, when Lorge sold Lot 4 and retained Lot 3. 8. Lot 3 had been owned in common with Lot 4 since 1920 by a succession of 5 different owners. 9. Lot 3 and Lot 4 had frequently been combined by prior owners on one Torrens Certificate and since 1940 Lot 3 and 4 have been combined on one Torrens Certificate. 10. Lots 3 and 4 have frequently been encumbered jointly by one or more mortgages since 1940, and during the time period when Lorge owned Lot 3 and 4. 11. Vacant Lot 3 has since 1920 been used as lawn area for the residence of Lot 4. With this use and with the lots in common ownership, the two lots combined met all the District zoning requirements, except lakeshore setback, as follows: Lot 3 & 4 combined lot area -39,843 s.f. Lot 3 and & combined lot width -120 ft. North side setback -66 ft. 12. The driveway access for the resiuence on Lot 4 crosses subject Lot 3 and enters the public street from Lot 3. Page 2 of 6 13. A steep hill on both lots precludes construction of separate driveways without major land alteration. 14. Access safety onto Casco Point Road at this location is a concern because of a curve in tl1e public street and because the steep hill on these lots reduces exit visibility. Having two driveways or multiple use of one driveway at this location would increase the safety problems. 15. Only one water service stub and one sewer connection stub have been provided for both lots. Occupied Lot 4 has been connected to public sewer and water service and has been assessed for one sewer connection unit and one water unit. Vacant Lot 3 has not been assessed unit charges for sewer or water. 16. Water service for the residence on Lot 4 was connected in 1972 via a pipe through Lot 3 to a service stub provided on Lot 3. 17. At the request of applicant Lorge, the City Council on November 24, 1980, adopted Resolution No. 1231 approving creation of private easements over Lot 3 in favor of Lot 4 to accommodate the existing driveway and utility services, with the agreed upon understanding of Lorge that such approval for combined use of the separate lots may be an additional factor in considering denial of the variance for which Lorge had applied. 18. Both lots have been zoned for a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre, 21, 780 s.f. since Ordinance No. 93 in 1967, at which time the two lots were held in common ownership by Kaare and Kathleen Granvold and which lots combined met the requirements of this zoning density. 19. Richard and Jean Lorge purchased both lots in 1972, with certificate of title document 480490 recorded August 10, 1972, at which time the lot in combination met the requirements of the 1967 zoning code, and at which time Lot 3 would not have been separately buildable without the same lot width variance applied for herein and a variance for lot area, for which Lorge still has not applied. 20. In comprehensive city wide rezoning in 1974, Ordinance No. 172 changed the District designation but did not change the minimum lot area, lot width or yard setback standards for this area as originally established in 1967. 21. Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, has stated in the record that in January or February, 1980, she received a call from a realtor representing Lorge asking about the buildability of Lot 3 if Lot 4 were sold to someone else, at which time the realtor was advised that vaiances would be required to build a house on Lot 3. Page 3 of 6 22. Lorge sold Lot 4, but not Lot 3, to Jerome Reinan on May 29, 1980, thereby separating the parcels for the first time since 1920 and thereby making both Lot 3 and Lot 4 substandard and deficient in regards to zoning requirements as enumerated above. 23. Lorge applied on August 29, 1980 for a lot width variance for Lot 3, but not for any other variances, stating as a hardship that there was ''no adjacent land available". 24. Prior to the Lorge sale of Lot 4 on May 29, 1980, there was adjacent land available to Lot 3 in the form of Lot 4 which historically had been owned in common with Lot 3. 25. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Lot 3 has always had value and been used as required area and yard space for the residence on Lot 4. 26. Any hardship resulting from the separate ownership of Lot 3 has been caused by the applicant's sale of adjacent Lot 4 eight years after common ownership by the applicant of both lots and thirteen years after the adoption of the applicable minimum zoning requirements. 27. The development of Lot 3 for residential purposes as proposed by Lorge would add to the existing drainage problems for the properties in the area, including Lot 4, previously owned by Lorge. 28. The granting of the variances would be adverse to the state promulgated low density shorelands development policy, Minn. Stat. §105.485, Subd. 1, which calls for a minimum lot width of 75 feet on a General Development or Recreational Development Lake such as Lake Minnetonka. 29. Section 31.202 of the Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the lot of record meets 80% of the required lot width. Lot 3 does not conform to this Section because it is only 60% of the required lot width and because it was in common ownership with Lot 4 between 1967 and 1980. 30. The City Council has always required that when two or more lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. Page 4 of 6 31. The granting of the required variances would result in the following violations of Section 32.340 of the Zoning Code with which the applicant must first comply before the required variances can be granted: a. The variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined herein. b. The safety and welfare of the community would be adversely affected for the reasons outlined herein, especially increased traffic and drainage problems. c. The amount of light and air in the neiqhborhood would be diminished by adding a structure on the substandard lot. d. The values of surrounding properties will be adversely affected. e. There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. f. The condition of having a substandard lot or two adjacent substandard lots held in common applies generally in the lakeshore residential districts. g. The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. h. The granting of the variances will impair the health, safety, comfort and be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. i. The granting of the variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 32. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary to any of the above findings of fact. The applicant has claimed only that Lot 3 would be of greater value to him if he could sell Page 5 of 6 it to a third party with the variances necessary to-build a home upon it. 33. Now that Lot 3 and Lot 4 are no longer held in common ownership, the City Assessor is directed to review the estimated market value of Lot 3 to insure that the estimated market value reflects the fact that the lot is not buildable. 11 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the day of February , 1981. 1t::~edt'½ w✓ ATTEST: Walter R~'Benson, City Administrator Alberta Strom, City Clerk Paqe 6 of 6 ~ay, 1910 Dec. 30, 1920 Dec. 29, 1921 Feb., 1930 July, 1940 May, 1949 April, 1958 1965 1966 9/5/67 11/21/67 1970 1971 8/10/72 8/31/72 ) CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS Charles Bloomquist acquires lot 4 from Langum. Hazael Bloomquist acquires lot 3 from Hoy. Hazel Bloomquist acquires lot 4 from Charles Bloomquist. Both lots 3 & 4 now owned in common with separate Torrens Certificates. Lots 3 & 4 deeded to Charles & Maggie Bloomquist with separate cettificates. Both lots sold to Anderson combined as one sertificate and one mortgage~ Both lots sold to Woodards--one certificate--one mortgage. Both lots sold to Gronvolds--one certificate--one mortgage. Sewer project ordered for Casco Point area Sewe~ installed in front of 2697.~asco Point Road and ,n whole area. Only one stu?Provided for the two lots. Only one unit charge assessed. 1967 Zoning Code adopted effective 9/14/67. Zoned this area R-lD 1/2 acre single family residential (unsevered properties zoned 1, 1 1/2 or 2 acres pervn,/-) Sewer connected to a_697 Casco Point Road. Water project ordered for Casco Point area. Water project installed. Only one stub provided for the two lots. Only one unit charge assessed. Lorge acquires lot 3 & 4 on one Certificate i480490j a.'7$0111'1.ecf Gr"ol/e,/d~ 0"1..t'.. JHt,r'tJa.3e,_, water connected to residence. 12/2/74 12/18/74 11/16/77 11/30/78 Winter, 1980 June-July, 1980 6/23/80 July, 1980 8/11/80 8/12/80 8/13/80 8/80 9/2/80 Comprehensive Guide Plan adopted. 1,.ndL City~de zoning amendments adopted effective 1/1/75. This area retains 1/2 acre zoning--no performance standard changes since 1967 except 75' lakeshore/hardcover requirements. Lot area, width, setbacks, common ownership requiremenfs all stayed the same. Lorge mortgages lots 3 & 4 together. Lorge adds second mortgage for combined lots. Inquiry from Mary Robinson, Burnet Realty, to Mabusth regarding buildability of lot 3. ~he was told variances would be required and thatcommon ownershipF°sed difficulties. Lot 4 with house sold C-D (traded?) to Reinan thus breaking common ownership after 60 years. Inquiry to Mabusth from buildability of lot 3. been sold separate from survey was required. Date of survey of lot 3. Charles Da Mart regarding He advised that lot 4 had lot 3. he was told a survey of lot 3 provided by realtor met 90% of lot area requirements. Mabusth says lot width not discussed. Hardcover variance discussed with Da Mart. Council rneeting--Butler brings up lot & facts. Motionf calling lot unbuildable. WRB calls Lorge with news of Council action. APO letter to Lorge regarding lot width/common ownership information. Mabusth held two meetings with Lorye. Lorge file~ variance application i~bl includiny: -2- 9/15/80 9/22/80 10/16/80 10/20/80 10/21/80 11/3/80 11/10/80 11/12/80 11/17/80 a) Survey dated 3/28/74 of both lots cornhined (dashed line divides lots; heavy solid border around both lots) b) Da Mart house plan. c) Affidavit of Richard & Jean Lorge and Kathleen Gronvold. d) Tax statements from 1977 & 1978. e) Copy of C-D to Reinan for lot 4. Mabusth memo to PC including: a) Lorge application and information. b) Petition from neighbors opposing variance--received 9/9/80. c) Letter from Child 2715 Casco Point Road citing drainage, etc. d) Several supreme court cases regarding substandard lots. (Note: PC meeting notices were mailed 9/19/80) PC meeting--tabled for staff research. Mabusth memo to PC regarding similar application~. PC meeting--Frahm moved, Rovegno seconded to approve:vote; 5 aye, 1 nay (Jabbour). Notice of PC action. ~~H.jt:I. I;-cTS-1. • Mabusth memo to Council regarding PC ~eomodation8. Council meeting including questioning of Lorge by BDM. Tabled for additional staff research. Notice of Council action. Burnet Realty letter requesting approval of an access easement over lot 3 to serve residence on lot 4 (driveway & curb are on lot 3) to facilitate sale of lot 4 from Reinan to Kane. -3- 11/20/80 11/24/80 .. • 12/9/80 12/17/80 1/5/88 1/6/81 1/8/81 1/8/81 1/9/81 1/12/81 1/16/81 1/19/81 1/23/81 Mabusth memo to C regarding access request. Council meeting--adopted Resolution 41231 approving access easement. Includes a statement­ signed by Richard & Mrs. Lorge on 12/9/80 that the granting of this easement may be an additional factor weighing against granting of the variance for lot 3. Lorge signature of Resolution #1231. Council meeting--reaffirmed Resolution #1231. Variance review tabled without discussion for attorney's review. File copy received of 11/19/80 title .A'Jpsearch. APO memo to Council regarding findings necessary to approve or deny variance. Included a draft resolution to deny. BDM draft memo to Council regarding title search, facts and legal opinions. •Minneapolis Star• published sale of lot 4 from Reinan to Kane for $125,000. BDM final memo to Council. Council meeting; Lorge and attorney Oberhauser present. Lorge presented a new site plan with relocated house. Tabled to allow Oberhauser time to prepare a written explanation of claimed hardships. Notice of Council action. Receipt of Oberhauser letter about hardships. APO comments to Council added on a copy. Call from Lorge to APO discussing options and his attempts to have neighbors buy lot 3. Said he has had Oberhauser's legal advise •since May•. Said he wants $30,000 for lot 3. I suggested he try to change neighbors minds about a relocated house as his best chance of changing the Council's mind. -4- 1/26/81 l/18/81 • 2/6/81 2/9/81 2/11/81 2/12/91 Council meeting--Lorge & Oberhauser present. Butler moved, paurus seconded to conceptually approve draft ResoYv}ion denying application. Staff to revers~ final language. ('e Vf 45e, Notice of Council action • BDM letter to Oberhauser with final draft resolution. Call from Grathwol to APO: wanted Lorge removed from agenda. APO stated that resolution expected to be approved and recommended that Lorge be present and represented. Council meeting. Butler moved, Van Nest seconded to adopt Resolution 41246. Notice of action plus signed resolution sent to Lorge ;cc Oberhauser. Kanes purchased lot 4 and residence (2697 Casco Point Road) Apri 1, 1981 10/6/81 10/16/81 Jean Lorge becomes sole owner of lot 3. Complaint about Lorge building a fence. Site inspection. No code violations on fence but new deck within 75' of lake found on Kane lot. Letter sent to Kane. c ' .L 1 /_ · r /n ..J/",,_.J g;R ?ecaaa~ fbytt;li/ CYdc"( Mr. & Mrs. Kane in to sile APO about deck. They wdlbe. n,..,or11'!,J._ dock Yiocation is on or near lot 3 and does not meet 10' setback from lot 3. They will remove/correct deck by 6/1/82. No other contact with or from Lorge 2/81-;t/82. :;?.j<g-(7... 3/3/82 3/8/82 3/22/82 0556j -~alv;ll" 1'€w~J c& A_,;_ -J;rie -,;,~r;r,7i ~'l'7 ~/7. City served with Lorge lawsuit. Nabusth recap memo. APO chonological memo. copy of suit. -s- See also APO comments on ,,~ lltt#lflfe> tJ;t /d-2tJ,f'~ If/ k N!., f>t!. ~C!ht,,;#t£1t ~j t::C;?/ rt:1-Va.t. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DIVISION Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge, Plaintiffs, vs. City of Orono, a Minnesota Statutory City, William B ;-- Van Nest, Mayor of Orono, Gregg Hannah, Orono Councilperson, 7fS ( Norman Paurus, Orono Councilperson, Mary Butler, Orono Councilperson, Jo Ellen Hurr, Orono Councilperson and former Councilpersons, Robert Searle Gary Welsh, and Paul Tesek, 7,-::tt 71 Defendants. ANSWER Civil File No.4-82-139 Defendants City of Orono, William B. Van Nest, Gregg Hannah, Norman Paurus, Mary Butler, Jo Ellen Hurr, Robert Searles, Gary Welsh and Paul Tesek for their joint answer to the Blaintiffs' Complaint state and allege: I. Unless otherwise admitted or qualified herein deny each and every allegation of Plaintiffs' Complaint. II. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph I of the Complaint. III. State that at times relevant to this action Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge were the fee owners of lots 3 and 4 as referred to on plaintiffs' Exhibit A and that Jean L. Lorge has been the fee owner of lot 3 as referred to on Exhibit A since April, 1981. IV. Admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs r..!i) V and\ VII . . -~ __ ,:/ of the Complaint. V. States that it does not have information upon which to form a belief concerning the allegations contained in Paragraphs VI, VIII, . ------ and IX of the Complaint. VI. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph X of the Complaint states that the ordinance referred to was acted on December 18, 1974 to be effective January 1, 1975; with respect to the other allegations contained in Paragraph X states that they do not have information upon which to form a belief as to the allegations. VII. State that they do not have information upon which to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraphs XI, XII, XIII, and XIV of the Complaint. VIII. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph XV states that a meeting of the Orono City Council was held on August 11, 1980 at which time Motions were passed and declaring lot 3 unbuildable; with respect to the other allegations contained in the Paragraphs state that they do not have information upon which to form a belief as to the allegations. IX. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph XVI of the Complaint states that on or about August 13, 1980 Alan P. Olson did send correspondence to plaintiffs advising them that their two lots were legally considered to be one but states that it does not have information to form a belief as to the other allegations con­ tained in the Paragraph. X. l-Jith respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph XVII of the Complaint held on or about state that Orono Planning Commission meeting was /4-~ September(?2) 1980 at which time the statements ''(;_, referred to in Paragraph were among several statements including in the discussion. XI. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph XVIII states that a Orono Planning Commission meeting was held on or about October 20, 1980 at which the plaintiffs requested variance was voted on but that such vote was 5 to 1 rather than 6 to 1 as referred to in plaintiff's Complaint. XII. /:-cc.::::_~",) With respect to the allegations contained in Parafrap(xvIV admits that a City Council Meeting occurred on or about November 10, 1980 and that the statements referred in the Paragraph were among several statement included at such meeting and further admit the other allegations contained in the Paragraph. XIII. With respect to the allegations contained in Pargagraphs XX through XXXI of the Complaint deny each and every such allegation. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES I. Plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. II. States that this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. III. States that as to each defendant this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. IV. As to those causes action arising under Federal Law defendant City of Orono is immune from liability. V. As to those causes of action arising under Federal Law defendant City of Orono,t\__is immune from liability for punitive damages. VI. As to those causes of action arising under Federal Law individual defendants acted in good faith and in their official capacities and therefore are absolutely immune from liability. VII. As to those causes of action aris,ing under Federal Law plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their state remedies. VIII. That plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action against these defendants under the provisions of Min.Stat. §466, et.seq. IX. That plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. X. That plaintiffs damages were the proximate result of the con­ tributory fault of the plaintiffs. XI. That plaintiffs damages were the proximate result of the fault of other parties over whom these defendants had no control. WHEREFORE, defendants request the plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and they be granted judgment in its favor for their costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys fees incurred herein. Dated: -------- PUSTORINO & PEDERSON Jon P. Parrington Attorney for Defendants 4005 West 65th Street Suite 200 Edina, Minnesota 55435 612/925-3001 A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES REQUESTED BY RICHARD LORGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2697 CASCO POINT ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Richard Lorge has applied for a lot width variance to permit construction of a new single family residence on Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; comments and petitions submitted by neighborhood citizens; and letters and comments made by the applicant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby makes the following findings of fact concerning this property: 1. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential District which has the following minimum lot requirements: Section 34.552 Lot Area Lot Width Front Setback Lake Setback Side Setback 21,780 s.f. 100 ft. 30 ft. 75 ft. 10 ft. 2. Lot 3 is deficient in regards to lot area and lot width requirements as follows: Lot 3 actual area is 19,641 s.f. -short 2,139 s.f. (10%) Lot 3 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) 3. Lot 3 was owned in common with abutting Lot 4 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by applicant Lorge from 1972 until May, 1980 when Lorge sold Lot 4 and retained Lot 3. 4. Lot 3 had been owned in common with Lot 4 since 1920 by a succession of 5 different owners. Page 1 of 4 5. Lot 4 is also deficient in regards to lot area and lot width requirements as follows: Lot 4 actual area is 20,202 s.f. -short 1,578 s.f. (7%) Lot 4 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) 6. Lot 4 contains a residence which is deficient in regards to required setbacks as follows: Actual lake setback 64 ft. -short 11 ft. (15%) North side setback 6 ft. -short 4 ft. (40%) 7. Vacant Lot 3 has since 1920 been used as lawn area for the residence on Lot 4. With this use and with the lots in common ownership, the two lots combined met all the District zoning requirements, except lakeshore setback, as follows: Lot 3 & 4 combined lot area -39,843 s.f. Lot 3 & 4 combined lot width -120 ft. North side setback -66 ft. 8. The driveway access for the residence on Lot 4 crosses subject Lot 3 and enters the public street from Lot 3. 9. A steep hill on both lots precludes construction of separate driveways without major land alteration. 10. Access safety onto Casco Point Road at this location is a concern because of a curve in the public street and because the steep hill on these lots reduce exit visibility. Having two driveways at this location would further reduce the safety factor. 11. Only 1 water service stub and 1 sewer connection stub have been provided for both lots. Occupied Lot 4 has been connected to public sewer and water service and has been assessed for one sewer connection unit and one water unit. Vacant Lot 3 has not been assessed unit charges. 12. Water service for the residence on Lot 4 was connected in 1967 via a line through Lot 3 to a service stub provided on Lot 3. Page 2 of 4 13. At the request of applicant Lorge, the City Council on November 24, 1980 adopted. Resolution No. 1231 approving creation of private easements over Lot 3 in favor of Lot 4 to accommodate the existing driveway and utility services, with the agreed upon understanding of Lorge that such approval for combined use of the separate lots may be an additional factor in considering denial of the subject variances. 14. Both lots have been zoned for a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre, 21,780 s.f. since Ordinance No. 93 in 1967, at which time the two lots were held in common ownership by Kaare and Kathleen Granvold and which lots combined met the requirements of this zoning density. 15. Richard and Jean Lorge purchased both lots in 1972, with certificate of title document 480490 recorded August 10, 1972, at which time the lot in combination met the requirements of the 1967 zoning code, and at which time Lot 3 would not have been separately buildable without the same variances applied for herein. 16. In comprehensive city wide rezoning in 1974, Ordinance No. 172 changed the District designation but did not change the minimum lot area, lot width or yard setback standards for this area as originally established in 1967. 17. Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, has stated in the record that in January or February, 1980, she received a call from a realtor asking about the buildability of Lot 3 at which time the realtor was advised that variances would be required. 18. Lorge sold Lot 4, but not Lot 3, to Jerome Reinan on May 29, 1980, thereby separating the parcels for the first time since 1920 and thereby making the separate lots substandard and deficient in regards to zoning requirements as enumerated above. 19. Lorge applied on August 29, 1980 for a lot width variance for Lot 3, but not for any other variances, stating as a hardship that there was "no adjacent land available". Page 3 of 4 20. Prior to the Lorge sale of Lot 4 on May 29, 1980, there was adjacent land available to Lot 3 in the form of Lot 4. 21. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Lot 3 has always had value and been used as required area and yard space for the residence on Lot 4. 22. Any hardship resulting from the separate ownership of Lot 3 has been caused by the applicant's sale of adjacent Lot 4 eight years after common ownership by the applicant of both lots and thirteen years after institution of the applicable minimum zoning requirements. 23. Section 31.202 of the Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the lot of record meets 80% of the required lot area and 80% of the required lot width. Lot 3 does not conform to this Section because it is only 60% of the required lot width and because it was in common ownership with Lot 4 between 1967 and 1980. AND, FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the above findings of fact, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot width variance (34.552) and denies the other variances required for lot area (34.552), side setback (34.552) and development of lots of record (31.202), finding in all cases that no hardship except a self-imposed financial hardship exists to justify such variances. day of ATTEST: Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the , 1981. ---------- William B. Van Nest, Mayor Walter R. Benson, City Administrator Page 4 of 4 ROGER HENNESSY AGENCY HENNESSY BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX I EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 PHONE: 474-4111 June 25, 1982 Mr. Walter R. Benson City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Ml'J 55323 Re: Lorge vs. City of Orono Dear Mr. Benson, James T. Thorne, CPCU As you requested, we forwarded the loss information to the previous Public Officials liability insurance carriers. I am enclosing Stewart Smith's reply concerning this claim and their brief explanation of the claims made policy. Under a claims policy period. feels that the commu...YJ.ications made policy, the claim must be brought during the As you can see from the enclosed, Stewart Smith claims will be denied. However, they are awating from Midland and Forum Insurance Company. As the suit in question was brought in March of_this year and the city had no prior knowledge of a pending su· , yhe present carrier should be the one responsible for · Thorne, CPCU JTT:rem j FROM: Ste-wart SmitJiMid America, Irie. 125 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone (312) 236-7333 SUBJECT: ~ t Dr,Mo /-1,d/q,j /rerum 7bL !IJr/A.-t 1'1r Jo,.,,,-~ /)1&rne- G/z. ' .. /.'E'.2... DATE:. 1 I ~~ /u~vJ l~ ~/ f bu ~a~ IA,_ [t,tye ~,;w #- "-_f ~ (o-rwtwki #--v i ~ + ~~ ? .. hf-L . J!;,u' . 71~ C,;v"?/lp;,, .. ~!~ ' .. /j~~J0 ,~~ r~"~ .~. 1✓v~;1:t;¾/ .t'J-rv ~0RVJ✓ ;~i_,£, ~·· M-c (!;yvukt' ,±71 ~ f7Jeoc« ,<-fa-(, CCfn/ ~fu.1-:::---f?~~. c~u,~✓••··· DATE BY RM-89 //(} So Ljt' St. 1. ~o/ OJ<,~wu 2 t 1~fJJ'4k-J_ ~~{ 1914 ~ ~ [167 ~ Z, ~ ~«e.d -v~ ~ ~f;;f..f~ tn.f. ¾~ 3. L°ir" ~ t~ { LJ -..,. ~ .._..e, .J . PUST □RIN □ & PE □ERS □N ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 CORNELIA BUILDING 400S WEST 65TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435 PETER ..J, PUSTORINO WILLIAM R . PEDERSON LOUIS R. TILTON .JON P . PARRINGTON TELEPHONE (612) 925-3001 Mr. Bruce Malkerson Attorney at Law 4344 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Mr. Alan P. Olson v City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 June 14, 1982 CITY OF ORONO RE: Richard Lorge vs. City of Orono, et al. Our File: 5798 Gent'lemen: It appears that the plaintiffs in this matter have been up to no good as I have now been served with a plaintiff's "First Set" of Continuing Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, copies of which are enclosed. It is my intention to respond to the Request for Documents by advising them that we will make them available for ··inspection ·upon reasonable prior notice -. With respect to the Interrogatories it is my intention not to under­ take any activity on them until after the pre-trial is held before Judge Lord. I will presume you concur unless I hear from you other­ wise. JPP/kao enclosure / \ PETER J. PUSTORJNO WILLIAM R . PEDERSON LOUIS R . TILTON JON P. PARRINGTON PUST □RIN □ cS. PE □ERS □N ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 CORNELIA BUILDING 4005 WEST 65TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435 TELEPHONE (612) 925-3001 May 21, 1982 Mr. Alan P. Olson Citv of Orono Box J 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Richard Lorge vs. City of Orono, et al. Our File: 5798 Dear Mr. Olson: This will confirm our conversation of May 18, where I advise you that Judge Lord's office called me and rescheduled the pre-trial to be held in Minneapolis at 10:00 a.m . on Thursday, June 24, 1982. I will call you a couple of days before the pre-trial to arrange getting together. JPP/kao cc: Mr. Bruce Malkerson Attorney at Law lf344 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 MAY 2692 CITY Of OR.ONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka May 12, 1982 Mr. Jon Parrington, Esq. Pustorino and Pederson 200 Cornelia Building 4005 West 65th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Re: Richard Lorge vs City of Orono Dear Mr. Parrington, I am in receipt of your 5-10-82 letter. I will plan to attend the pretrial conference at 10 AM on 5-20-82. Sincerely, ~l cc: Bruce D. Malkerson Walter R. Benson City Council BUILDING & ZONING -473-7357 ASSESSING • ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE 473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS -473-7359 PETER J. PUSTORINO W ILLIAM R. PEDERSON LOUIS R . TILTON JON P . PARRINGTON Mr. Alan P. Olson City of Orono Box 66 PUST □FIIN □ & PE □EFIS □N ATTORNEYS AT LAVV 200 CORNELIA BUILDING 4005 W EST 65TH STREET M I NN EAPOLIS , M I NNESOTA 55435 May 10, 1982 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Richard Lorge vs. City of Orono, et al. Our File: 5798 Dear Mr. Olson: TELEPHONE [612) 925-3001 ,-, . . ::_,-;:\.;rL~ rl \\(:n· =' P.UJ \ , '_ .. ~ '':} .~ L ' . . i i ' 1.)-----· . ! 1 1 \l) I j ll ~·.' l MAY I 2 1982 : l 1\ d\J L~----__ JL~ I CITY Of ORO, \Q J We have been advised that this matter has been assigned to Judge Lord and that a Pre-trial Conferen c e has been schedul e d to be held in Minneapolis on Thursday, May 20, 1982, at 10:00 a.m. I would appreciate it if you could appear at the Pre-trial with me and if you could just drop me a short note to confirm your availability o n the date and time as scheduled. JPP/dcn Dear Gentlemen: GAB Business Services Inc 4510 West 77th Street Suite 248 Minneapolis Minnesota 55435 Telephone (612) 831-8444 Branch Office April 20th, 1982 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Our File No.: 56527-96739 Insured: City of Orono Claimant: Richard & Jean Lorge Date of Claim: 2-11-81 Type of Claim: Alleged Denial of Variance for Property Location: Lot No. 3, Auditor's Subdivision 265 located on Casco Point in the Southern Part or Orono and Lot No. 4 in the same area Your notice of an incident occurring on or about February 11th, 1981 reported under policy number MP9693843-R to the Roger Hennessey Insurance Agency on or about March 11th, 1982 has been referred to this office. Your policy requires that you give written notice of an incident to the insurance company or its authorized agent as soon as practicable after the incident occurs. It is important that the incident be reported immediately so a prompt investigation can be made, witnesses interviewed while they remember the facts, and any claims that develop given the necessary attention. Because of a delayed notice, and the fact that there is no coverage for an intentional tort, and no coverage on punitive damages any investigation made or action taken by ourselves or other representatives of the insurer on this claim is done with full reservation of rights under the policy and with the understanding that any investigation, adjustment, defense of the claim or any action whatever by ourselves or other representatives of the League of Cities will not constitute a waiver of any rights the insurance company may have under the policy. It is, of course, understood that you do not waive any of your rights under this policy. If you have any questions about our handling this claim as herein outlined, please advise. Otherwise we will assum~u understand that any action taken in the investigation, adjustmen't or defense of this claim is done with full reservation of rights under the I - City of Orono Page Two policy, and will not be considered a waiver of any rights under the policy. CCC/dfb Sincerely yours, ~~z Craig Corah Duly Authorized Agent League of Cities/ National Union Fire Insurance Co. POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUF'MAN & DOTY, LTD. WAYNE G. POPHAM RAYMOND A, HAIK ROGER W. SCHNOBR ICH DENVER KAUFMAN DAVID S . DOTY ROBERT A. M I NISH ROLFE A. WORDEN G. MARC WHITEHEAD BRUCE D .WILLIS FREDERICKS . RICHARDS G. ROBERT JOHNSON GARY R . MACOMBER ROBERTS. BURK FREDERICK C. BROWN THOMAS K . BERG BRUCE D. MA L KERSON JAMES R . STEILEN JAMES B. LOCKHART ALLEN W. HINDERAKER CLIFFORD M. GREENE OF COUNSEL FRED L . MORRISON 4344 IDS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER 612-333-4800 D . WILLIAM KAUFMAN DESYL L. PETERSON MICHAEL 0 . FREEMAN THOMAS C. D'AQUILA LARRY D. ESPEL JANIE S . MAYERON DA V ID A. JONES SALLY A . JOHNSON LEE E. SHEEHY LESLIE GILLETTE MICHAEL T. NILAN ROBERT C. MOILANEN DAVID J . EDQUIST CATHERINE A . POLASKY STEVEN G. HEIKENS JOHN R. WILCOX KATHLEEN M. MINDER NANCY J . TUR BAK JOHN C . CH ILD S THERESE AMBRUSKO March 29, 1982 Alan P. Olson City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Lorge v. City of Orono, et al Dear Al: 2660 PETRO-LEW I S T OWER DENVER , COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPlER 303-825-2660 SUITE 802-2000 L STREET N. W . WASHINGTON, D . C . 20036 TELEPHONE ANO TELECOPIER 202-887-5 154 Enclosed please find a typewritten draft of the Chronology of Events in regard to the above-captioned matter. BDM/jf Enclosure 0570j Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA FOURTH DISTRICT Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge, Plaintiffs, vs. City of Orono, a Minnesota Statutory City, William B. Van Nest, Mayor of Orono, Gregg Hannah, Orono Councilperson, Norman Paurus, Orono Councilperson, Mary Butler, Orono Councilperson Jo Ellen H~rr, Orono Councilperson and former Councilpersons, Robert Searles, Gary Welsh, and Paul Tesek, Defendants, FIRST SET OF CONTINUING REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES FROM PLAINTIFFS LORGE TO DEFENDANTS. CIVIL 4-82-139 TO: Defendants, City of Orono, et al and its' attorney, Jon P. Parrington of Pustorino and Pederson, 4005 West 65th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55435. INTRODUCTION The following Interrogatories are addressed to you by Plaintiffs, Richard J. Lorge and J~an L. Lorge (hereinafter referred to as "Lorge") pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of Minnesota. Except as other wise indicated in any specific Interrogatory or Request for Documents, your initial Answer should be as of the dates these Interrogatories are served upon you. These Interrogatories are continuing in character, however, and require you to file supplementary Answers if you obtain further or different information after your initial Answer and before trial. You are required to serve a copy of your Answers to these Interrogatories, and objections thereto, if any, on the undersigned Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days after these Interrogatories are served upon you. For the purposes of this first series of Requests for Documents and Inter­ rogatories and all future Requests for Documents and Interrogatories hereafter served upon you, the "definitions and instructions" are contained in Appendix A attached. REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS Reequest for Documents #1 -Provide a copy of Ordinance #93 and other pertinent documents referring to the 1967 zoning changes. Request for Document #2 -Provide a copy of the final zoning report covering the testimony, meetings, and documents relative to the 1967 zoning changes. Request for Documents #3 -Provide a copy of the documents showing review and approval of the zoning laws as passed in 1967 by appropriate authorities. Request for Documents #4 -Provide copies of variance, conditional use, and building requests and related documents for properties on Casco Point Road· which were processed in 1972 and 1973, including, but not limited to, the properties at 2601 and 2617 Casco Point Road and the properties covered by RLS 1333. Request for Documents #5 -Provide a copy of the Comprehensive Plan of City of Orono in force prior to the 1974 zoning ordinance changes. Request for Documents #6 -Provide a copy of Ordinance #172 of the City of Orono. Request for Documents #7 -Provide copies of notices published prior to the 1974 ordinance changes as reflected in Ordinance #172 and other appropriate documents. If not specifically noted, state where the notices were published, when the notice~ were published, the number of times such notices were published Request for Documents #8 -Provide all documentation,.maps, surveys, minutes of meetings, and other information relative to the various meetings conducted prior to the establishment of Ordinance #172. Request for Documents #9 -Provide a copy of all reports and exhibits associated with the final zoning document supporting Ordinance #172, including, but not limited to, recorded testimony from all parties, letters from property owners, and reports by various individuals and organizations. Request for Documents #10 -Provide a copy of the documents or correspondence approving the zoning changes affected by Ordinance #172, by the appropriate authorities. -2- Request for Documents #11 -Provide copies of each written petition, letters, or other such information submitted by the Plaintiffs neighbors before or during the hearings on the variance request for the property located at 2697 Casco Point Road resulting in Resolution 1246. INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory #1 -With respect to the time period of 1967 through January 1, 1975, provide a listing of all variance requests and conditional use permit requests for all single family residential lakeshore property required because of zoning changes in 1967. Provide appropriate documents to enable an understanding of all issues involved, all principle parties involved with their names and actress, and the final disposition of each request. Interrogatory #2 -With respect with the terminology, "owned in common" or "joint ownership", list and provide copies of all ordinances within the City of Orono which relate to this "owned in common" subject. For each ordinance listed state the date of approval and effectiveness. Interrogatory #3 -With respect to the zoning laws effective on January 1, 1975 for platted, lakeshore, properties zoned as single family residential, list and describe those properties within the City of Orono considered as "owned in common", providing a legal description of said property, legal (fee) owner at the time, the amount of improvement, if any, on said properties. Interrogatory #4 -With respect to the time period from January 1, 1975 to March 1, 1982, provide a listing and description of all zoning change requests, variance requests·, conditional use permit requests, and building permits which involve in any way lakeshore property zoned as single famfly residential and characterized by "owned in common", and provide the documents showing final resolution of such requests. Interrogatory #5 -With respect to City Council members, provide a copy of all documents relating to the requirements, duties, oaths of office, respon­ sibilities, and authority of Council members as set forth by the City of Orono. -3- Interrogatory #6 -Provide a list of Council members and their last known actress for those Council members who held office in 1974 through and including March 1, 1982. Interrogatory #7 -With respect to Planning Commission members who held office from August, 1980 through March of 1982, provide their names and last known telephone numbers and addresses. Interrogatory #8 -With regard to policy, ordinances, and commonly accepted procedures within the City of Orono for taxation, list and provide copies of ordinances dealing with the instructions and directions to city or county tax assessors relative to effects brought about by zoning changes, if any. What, if any, instructions were given to city or county tax assessors as a result of Ordinances #93 and/or Ordinance #172. Interrogatory #9 -With respect to a letter dated August 13, 1980 sent to the Plantiffs by Alan P. Olson, Village Planner, which states in part in the third paragraph, "therefore, your two lots are legally considered to be one and only one building site ••• "; a. Site the ordinances on which the claim of the above is founded. b. If not included in (a.) above, state the time at which such a legal position was established. c. Is the statement concerning legality of the combination of the two lots a position taken by the City of Orono and its' legal advisors. (A copy of said letter is enclosed). -4- APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS "For purposes of this first series of Interrogatories and all future series of Interrogatories hereafter served upon you, the following definitions and instructions shall apply. As used in these Interrogatories, the terms listed below are defined as follows: (a) The term "documents" means all writings of any kind, including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise (including without limitation blueprints, drawings, plans, renderings, specifications, correspon­ dence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice and intra-office communications, offer, notations of any sort of conversations, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts, teletypes, telefax, invoices, worksheets, and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes and amendments of any of the foregoing) graphic or aural records or representations of any kind (including without limitation photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures) and electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind (including without limitation tapes, cassettes, discs, recordings). (b) "You" or "Your" means the party or parties to whom these Inter­ rogatories are addressed, its present and former offices, agents and all other persons acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including all past or present employees, council members and planning commission members exercising discretion, making policy and making decisions or participating in any matters relating to the pleadings of the parties herein. (c) As used herein, "identify" or "identity" used in reference to a city, council, planning organization, association, or corporation means to state its official or published name and present address and the names and present addresses of the principal members, participants, partners, officers and/or employees. (d) As used herein "identify" or "identity" used in reference to an individual person means to state his full name and present address, his present or last known position and business affiliation, and his position and business affiliation at the time in question. (e) As used herein, "identify" or "identity" when used in reference to a document means to state the date and author, drawer, draftsman, or addressor, type of document (e.g. letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, etc.), or some other means of identifying it, the recipients of all copies of said document, and its present locati9n or custodian. If any such document was but is no longer in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it. In lieu of such identification, Defendants may furnish, simultan­ eously with the filing of Answers to these Interrogatories, such documents for inspection and copying. -2- ~~c) I J,..,...~Jj t&n~ It. I ;. 02( ~ -k lo/!' ~-/}7 2r "+I--~ ~ -l'UI "--"YJ J -v-~ ~? (/. ~,I)/ C'a.,e, ;?f /1.I ( VAA/C'ut°//3/J~ .f'en ~ i,,7 ---V' I,"' 7 , ltLS 13'3'3 '( f. 1'174 o~ ~eU--t. -/_,-.e rJ , . tJhL 17:z.. -~ ~ ~ \ 7. //~ )(~ 'tfh_ 172. -:;:€€ ~-~ ~ dt~ ~ ~ /4.---tn.2. C-IGw(/~ 'I.~~ /4?· ~.£ 17:Z. '-ti/ _I 5 ~¥~ ~'7. I/. r4;(~~/4-_~ ~l.o/1/~ 5e£ M ,~,.,,~ I POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD . 4344 IDS CENTER l,INNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 WAY NE G . POPHAM RAYM OND A. HAIK ROGER W . SCHNOBRICH DEN V ER KAUFMAN DAV IDS, DOTY ROBERT A . MINISH GARY E . PARISH • ALLEN W. HINDERA K ER CLIFFORD M . GREENE D. WILLIAM KAUFMAN DESYL L. PETERSON MICHAEL O . FREEMAN ROLFE A. WORDEN MEDORA S . PERLMAN G. MARC WHITEHEAD LARRY D . ESPEL BRUCE D . WILLIS JANIE S. MAYERON FREDERICKS . RICHARDS DAV ID A . JONES RONALD C . ELMQUIST SALLY A , JOHNSON G . ROBERT JOHNSON J. MICHAEL MORGAN GAR Y R. MACOMB ER ROBERTS. BURK ROBERT E . HAMEL • FREDERICK C. BROWN BRUCE D . MALKERSON JAM ES R. STEILEN JAMES B . LOCKHART * ADMITTED IN COLORADO ONLY LEE E . SHEEH Y LESLIE GILLETTE MICHAEL T . NILAN DAV ID J . EDQUIST CATHERINE A. POLASKY STE V EN G. HEIKENS Louis B. Oberhauser Grathwol, Oberhauser & Randall 1421 E. Wayzata Boulevard Suite 210 Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Richard Lorge Dear Mr. Oberhauser: February 5, 1981 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER 612-335-9331 DENVER OFFICE 2660 ENERGY CENTER DEN V ER , COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER 303-825-2 660 Enclosed please find a copy of a Resolution Variances Requested by Richard Lorge for your be acted upon by the City Council on Februar BDM/jd Enclosure cc: Mayor and City Council, City of Orono Walter R. Ben~ Alan Olson V Very truly yours, rf2,,1 ~ (j) fl~ ~c~ D. Malkerson City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CIT'¥ COUNCIL NO. _______ _ A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES REQUESTED BY RICHARD LORGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2697 CASCO POINT ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Richard Lorge has applied for a lot width variance to permit construction of a new single family residence on Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by some future buyer of Lot 3; and WHEREAS, the City council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; comments and petitions submitted by neighborhood citizens; and letters and comments made by the applicant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot width variance (Section 34.552) for Lot 3, and denies the other required variances for which no applications were made, which variances are lot width variance (Section 34.552) for Lots 3 and 4, lot area variance (Section 34.552) for Lot 4, side setback (Section 34.552) for Lot 4, and development of substandard lots of record held in common owner­ ship (Section 31.202) for Lots 3 and 4, based upon-one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: 1. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential District which has the following minimum lot requirements: Section 34.552 Lot Area Lot Width Front Setback Lake Setback Side Setback 21,780 s.f. 100 ft. 30 ft. 75 ft. 10 ft. 2. Lot 3 is deficient in regards to lot area and lot width requirements as follows: Lot 3 actual area is 19,641 s.f. -short 2,139 s.f. (10%) Lot 3 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) Page 1 of 6 3. Lot 4 is also deficient in regards to lot area and Lot width requirements as follows: Lot 4 actual area is 20,202 s.f. -short 1,578 s.f. (7%) Lot 4 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) 4. Lot 4 contains a residence which is deficient in regards to required setbacks as follows: Actual lake setback 64 ft. -short 11 ft. (15%) North side setback 6 ft. -short 4 ft. (40%) 5. Lorge has failed to apply for a variance for side yard setback for the house of Lot 4. 6. Lorge has failed to apply for a variance from the lot area requirements of the zoning Code for Lots 3 and 4. 7. Lot 3 was owned in common with abutting Lot 4 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by applicant Lorge from 1972 until May, 1980, when Lorge sold Lot 4 and retained Lot 3. 8. Lot 3 had been owned in common with Lot 4 since 1920 by a succession of 5 different owners. 9. Lot 3 and Lot 4 had frequently been combined by prior owners on one Torrens Certificate and since 1940 Lot 3 and 4 have been combined on one Torrens Certificate. 10. Lots 3 and 4 have frequently been encumbered jointly by one or more mortgages since 1940, and during the time period when Lorge owned Lot 3 and 4. 11. Vacant Lot 3 has since 1920 been used as lawn area for the residence of Lot 4. With this use and with the lots in common ownership, the two lots combined met all the District zoning requirements, except lakeshore setback, as follows: Lot 3 & 4 combined lot area -39,843 s.f. Lot 3 and & combined lot width -120 ft. North side setback -66 ft. 12. The driveway access for the residence on Lot 4 crosses subject Lot 3 and enters the public street from Lot 3. Page 2 of 6 13. A steep hill on both lots precludes construction of separate driveways without major land alteratiortw I 14. Access safety onto Casco Point Road at this location is a concern because of a curve in the public street and because the steep hill on these lots reduces exit visibility. Having two driveways or multiple use of one driveway at this location would increase the safety problems. 15. Only one water service stub and one sewer connection stub have been provided for both lots. Occupied Lot 4 has been connected to public sewer and water service and has been assessed for one sewer connection unit and one water unit. Vacant Lot 3 has not been assessed unit charges for sewer or water. 16. Water service for the residence on Lot 4 was connected in 1972 via a pipe through Lot 3 to a service stub provided on Lot 3. 17. At the request of applicant Lorge, the City Council on November 24, 1980, adopted Resolution No. 1231 approving creation of private easements over Lot 3 in favor of Lot 4 to accommodate the existing driveway and utility services, with the agreed upon understanding of Lorge that such approval for combined use of the separate lots may be an additional factor in considering denial of the variance for which Lorge had applied. 18. Both lots have been zoned for a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre, 21, 780 s.f. since Ordinance No. 93 in 1967, at which time the two lots were held in common ownership by Kaare and Kathleen Gronvold and which lots combined met the requirements of this zoning density. 19. Richard and Jean Lorge purchased both lots in 1972, with certificate of title document 480490 recorded August 10, 1972, at which time the lot in combination met the requirements of the 1967 zoning code, and at which time Lot 3 would not have been separately buildable without the same lot width variance applied for herein and a variance for lot area, for which Lorge still has not applied. 20. In comprehensive city wide rezoning in 1974, Ordinance No. 172 changed the District designation but did not change the minimum lot area, lot width or yard setback standards for this area as originally established in 1967. 21. Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, has stated in the record that in January or February, 1980, she received a call from a realtor representing Lorge asking about the buildability of Lot 3 if Lot 4 were sold to someone else, at which time the realtor was advised that vaiances would be required to build a house on Lot 3. Page 3 of 6 22. Lorge sold Lot 4, but not Lot 3, to Jerome Reinan on May 29, 1980, thereby separating the parcels for the f ir,~t time since 1920 and thereby making both Lot 3 ana Lot 4 substandard and deficient in regards to zoning requirements as enumerated above. 23. Lorge applied on August 29, 1980 for a lot width variance for Lot 3, but not for any other variances, stating as a hardship that there was "no adjacent land available". 24. Prior to the Lorge sale of Lot 4 on May 29, 1980, there was adjacent land available to Lot 3 in the form of Lot 4 which historically had been owned in common with Lot 3. 25. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Lot 3 has always had value and been used as required area and yard space for the residence on Lot 4. 26. Any hardship resulting from the separate ownership of Lot 3 has been caused by the applicant's sale of adjacent Lot 4 eight years after common ownership by the applicant of both lots and thirteen years after the adoption of the applicable minimum zoning requirements. 27. The development of Lot 3 for residential purposes as proposed by Lorge would add to the existing drainage problems for the properties in the area, including Lot 4, previously owned by Lorge. 28. The granting of the variances would be adverse to the state promulgated low density shorelands development policy, Minn. Stat. §105.485, Subd. 1, which calls for a minimum lot width of 75 feet on a General Development or Recreational Development Lake such as Lake Minnetonka. 29. Section 31.202 of the Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the lot of record meets 80% of the required lot width. Lot 3 does not conform to this Section because it is only 60% of the required lot width and because it was in common ownership with Lot 4 between 1967 and 1980. 30. The City Council has always required that when two or more lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. Page 4 of 6 31. The granting of the required variances would result in the following violations of Section 32.340 9f the Zoning Code witt which the applicant must first comply before the required variances can be granted: a. The variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined herein. b. The safety and welfare of the community would be adversely affected for the reasons outlined herein, especially increased traffic and drainage problems. c. The amount of light and air in the neiqhborhood would be diminished by adding a structure on the substandard lot. d. The values of surrounding properties will be adversely affected. e. There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. f. The condition of having a substandard lot or two adjacent substandard lots held in common applies generally in the lakeshore residential districts. g. The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. h. The granting of the variances will impair the health, safety, comfort and be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. i. The granting of the variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 32. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary to any of the above findings of fact. The applicant has claimed only that Lot 3 would be of greater value to him if he could sell Page 5 of 6 it to a third party with the variances necessary to build a home upon it. I 33. Now that Lot 3 and Lot 4 are no longer held in common ownership, the City Assessor is directed to review the estimated market value of Lot 3 to insure that the estimated market value reflects the fact that the lot is not buildable. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the ___ day of ______ , 1981. William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Walter R. Benson, City Administrator Alberta Strom, City Clerk Page 6 of 6 duff z.-,_,, City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _______ _ A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES REQUESTED BY RICHARD LORGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2697 CASCO POINT ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Richard Lorge has applied for a lot width variance to permit construction of a new single family residence on Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by some future ·buyer of Lot 3; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; comments and petitions submitted by neighborhood citizens; and letters and comments made by the applicant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot width variance (Section 34.552) for Lot 3, and denies the other required variances for which no applications were made, which variances are lot width variance (Section 34.552) for Lots 3 and 4, lot area variance (Section 34.552) for Lot 4, side setback (Section 34.552) for Lot 4, and development of substandard lots of record held in common owner­ ship (Section 31.202) for Lots 3 and 4, based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: 1. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential District which has the following minimum lot requirements: Section 34.552 Lot Area Lot Width Front Setback Lake Setback Side Setback 21,780 s.f. 100 ft. 30 ft. 75 ft. 10 ft. 2. Lot 3 is deficient in regards to lot area and lot width requirements as follows: Lot 3 actual area is 19,641 s.f. -short 2,139 s.f. (10%) Lot 3 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) Page 1 of 6 3. Lot 4 is also deficient in regards to lot area and Lot width. requirements as follows: Lot 4 actual area is 20,202 s.f. -short 1,578 s.f. (7%) Lot 4 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) 4. Lot 4 contains a residence which is deficient in regards to required setbacks as follows: Actual lake setback 64 ft. -short 11 ft. (15%) North side setback 6 ft. -short 4 ft. (40%) 5. Lorge has failed to apply for a variance for side yard setback for the house of Lot 4. 6. Lorge has failed to apply for a variance from the lot area requirements of the zoning Code for Lots 3 and 4. 7. Lot 3 was owned in common with abutting Lot 4 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by applicant Lorge from 1972 until May, 1980, when Lorge sold Lot 4 and retained Lot 3. 8. Lot 3 had been owned in common with Lot 4 since 1920 by a succession of 5 different owners. 9. Lot 3 and Lot 4 had frequently been combined by prior owners on one Torrens Certificate and since 1940 Lot 3 and 4 have been combined on one Torrens Certificate. 10. Lots 3 and 4 have frequently been encumbered jointly by one or more mortgages since 1940, and during the time period when Lorge owned Lot 3 and 4. 11. Vacant Lot 3 has since 1920 been used as lawn area for the residence of Lot 4. With this use and with the lots in common ownership, the two lots combined met all the District zoning requirements, except lakeshore setback, as follows: Lot 3 & 4 combined lot area -39,843 s.f. Lot 3 and ~ombined lot width -120 ft. North sid ~J tback -66 ft. 4 12. The driveway access for the residence on Lot 4 crosses subject Lot 3 and enters the public street from Lot 3. Page 2 of 6 13. A ste9p hill on both lots precludes construction of separate driveways without major land alteration. 14. Access safety onto Casco Point Road at this location is a concern because of a curve in the public street and because the steep hill on these lots reduces exit visibility. Having two driveways or multiple use of one driveway at this location would increase the safety problems. 15. Only one water service stub and one sewer connection stub have been provided for both lots. Occupied Lot 4 has been connected to public sewer and water service and has been assessed for one sewer connection unit and one water unit. Vacant Lot 3 ha @ -crt een assessed unit charges for sewer or water. 11 /4 . Water service for the residence on Lot 4 was connected in / 1 967 ia a pipe through Lot 3 to a service stub provided on Lot 3. 17. At the request of applicant Lorge, the City Council on November 24, 1980, adopted Resolution No. 1231 approving creation of private easements over Lot 3 in favor of Lot 4 to accommodate the existing driveway and utility services, with the agreed upon understanding of Lorge that such approval for combined use of the separate lots may be an additional factor in considering denial of the variance for which Lorge had applied. 18. Both lots have been zoned for a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre, 21, 780 s.f. since Ordinance No. 93 in 1967, at which time the two lots were held in common ownership by Kaare and Kathleen Granvold and which lots combined met the requirements of this zoning density. 19. Richard and Jean Lorge purchased both lots in 1972, with certificate of title document 480490 recorded August 10, 1972, at which time the lot in combination met the requirements of the 1967 zoning code, and at which time Lot 3 would not have been separately buildable without the same lot width variance applied for herein and a variance for lot area, for which Lorge still has not applied. 20. In comprehensive city wide rezoning in 1974, Ordinance No. 172 changed the District designation but did not change the minimum lot area, lot width or yard setback standards for this area as originally established in 1967. 21. Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, has stated in the record that in January or February, 1980, she received a call from a realtor representing Lorge asking about the buildability of Lot 3 if Lot 4 were sold to someone else, at which time the realtor was advised that variances would be required to build a house on Lot 3. Page 3 of 6 22. Lorge sold Lot 4, but not Lot 3, to Jerome Reinan on May 29, 1980, thereby separating the parcels for the first time since 1920 and thereby making both Lot 3 and Lot 4 substandard and deficient in regards to zoning requirements as enumerated above. 23. Lorge applied on August 29, 1980 for a lot width variance for Lot 3, but not for any other variances, stating as a hardship that there was "no adjacent land available". 24. Prior to the Lorge sale of Lot 4 on May 29, 1980, there was adjacent land available to Lot 3 in the form of Lot 4 which historically had been owned in common with Lot 3. 25. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Lot 3 has always had value and been used as required area and yard space for the residence on Lot 4. 26. Any hardship resulting from the separate ownership of Lot 3 has been caused by the applicant's sale of adjacent Lot 4 eight years after common ownership by the applicant of both lots and thirteen years after the adoption of the applicable minimum zoning requirements. 27. The proposed by Lorge the properties in Lorge. development of Lot 3 for residential purposes as would add to the existing drainage problems for the area, including Lot 4, previously owned by ~w 28. The n ~ting of the variances would be adverse to the state promulgated ~density shorelands development policy, Minn. Stat. §105.485, Subd. 1, which calls for a minimum lot width of 75 feet on a General Development or Recreational Development Lak es such as Lake Minnetonka. 29. Section 31.202 of the Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the lot of record meets 80% of the required lot width. Lot 3 does not conform to this Section because it is only 60% of the required lot width and because it was in common ownership with Lot 4 between 1967 and 1980. 30. The City Council has always required that when two or more lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. Page 4 of 6 31. The granting of the required variances would result in the following violations of Section 31"340 of the Zoning Code with which the applicant must first comply before the required variances can be granted: a. The variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined herein. b. The safety and welfare of the community would be adversely affected for the reasons outlined herein, especially increased traffic and drainage problems. c. The amount of light and air in the neighborhood would be diminished by adding a structure on the substandard lot. d. The values of surrounding properties will be adversely affected. e. There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. f. The condition of having a substandard lot or two adjacent substandard lots held in common applies generally in the lakeshore residential districts. g. The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. h. The granting of the variances will impair the health, safety, comfort and be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. i. The granting of the variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 32. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary to any of the above findings of fact. The applicant has claimed only that Lot 3 would be of greater value to him if he could sell Page 5 of 6 it to a third party with the variances necessary to build a home upon it. 33. Now that Lot 3 and Lot 4 are no longer held in common ownership, the City Assessor is directed to review the estimated market value of Lot 3 to insure that the estimated market value reflects the fact that the lot is not buildable. \ 34. -Upon app ication therefor, the City will favorably cons~ranting o a permit to al o Lot 3 to be used for the placement of a dock thereon and other water related activities. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the day of _____ , 1981. William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Walter R. Benson, City Administrator Alberta Strom, City Clerk Page 6 of 6 Ul'l'Y ot· UKUNU l'ost Office Hox 66• Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices Control No. _g/ Meeting Date J-26"/ YI Notice Date / -2f--f-1 TO: ,) Telephone 473-7357 /4~/iarcl ~tJcJe- /Zt. I !fr,y /?o D Carver ) /t-,t-,. 7 5" 515 ' _2S. Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision, Final Copies to: ,/_"u Okr/2a-Vf_er ·*******-k-k**-k-k*******-kk***********************-k-k*-k-k***-k-k*******************-k-k**-k-k* COUNCIL ACTION Vote: ..f For _Q Against __ Abstention· MOTION (1,,,.., J vriUL -W ;{JP'-c>Pe. Ee ck,,~,,;{-,.., dw,wgf 4 1/A/Mnce;;t ad /IZArz/; W!!! i?rt'.€7 ~ ;ll::, /--/2-.f/ r*-k-k****-k-k**********-1rl::*~****-k-k**-k-k***~-Iri:-k-k****¼¼-k-k-k**-k-k-k-k**¼-k-k-k-k-k**¼k--Jrl(*******~* nFADLINE DA TE rd ;i ..--1 r rl ' x... for submittal of new information (application may be considered formally withdrawn if information or explanat~on is not provided). for Work Permit for work to begin for work to be application completed WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED -contact Building Inspector before beginning work. VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans. Do not change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval. CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use, or on deadline date specified above. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -Applicant must provide all information and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning Administrator. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -Applicant must have drawings, resolution and all other required documents recorded, with certification of such recording returned to the City by deadline date. Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date. REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JANUARY 26, 1981 Page 3 SUBDIVISION Alan Olson, City Planner, reviewed with the City Council the request for a subdivision for Bruce Hepp, 2605 West Lafayette Road. 2605 West Lafayette Rd #545 Acting Mayor Butler noted for the record that Mr. Thomas Lowe submitted a letter commenting that he and his attorney will be out of town this ·evening and Mr. Lowe is requesting the matter be tabled until the next Council meeting. Acting Mayor Butler continued by commenting, I would like to have staff prepare a resolution for our next Council meeting. Acting Mayor Butler reviewed Mr. Franz Jevne's letter dated January 12, 1981. Letter -Pages 4-11 Acting Mayor Butler commented that if a resolution is prepared, it will be subject to no variances to be approved. Hurr moved, Paurus seconded, to deny earlier application as an alternate plan creating two lots #1 and #2, and denying riparian access to the lake­ shore. Motion, Ayes (3)-Nays (0). Councilmernber Hannah abstained. Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to authorize staff to prepare a resolution for the next Council meeting to include all pertinent information documented to date addressing hardcover, setbacks, pond is not navigable water for future dredging, no variances allowed, Bruce Hepp utility charges, park dedication fees, and all application fees to be borne by applicant, at which time, the City Council will vote the resolution up or down. Motion, Ayes (3) -Nays (1). Councilmernber Paurus Nay. Mr. Louis Oberhauser reviewed his client's, Richard Lorge, 3697 Casco Point Road, application for a variance, and his letter dated January 14, 1981. /vARIANCE 3697 Casco #581 Point Road Richard Lorge Acting Mayor Butler: Mr. Oberhauser, what is the stated hardship? Mr. Oberhauser: The hardship is denying my client's right to develop his lot. I believe the judge will have to determine who is right. Mr. Lorge: We feel the City should inform everyone through their chain of title if lots are buildable or not. Acting Mayor Butler: The City cannot notify every­ one of this type of situation and advise adjacent homeowners to purchase an unbuildable lot. Acting Mayor Butler moved, Paurus seconded, to conceptually approve a resolution to deny Mr. Lorge's application requesting Etaff to finalize drafting of a resolution for the February 11, 1981 Council meeting. Motion, Ayes (4) -Nays (0). d58f GRATHWOL, OBERHAUSER & RANDALL, LTD. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEi.ORS AT I.AW O'NEILL J. GRATHWOL 1421 E. WAYZATA BOULEVARD -SUITE 210 WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 (612) 475-2401 1905-1974 JAMES N. GRATHWOL LOUIS B. OBERHAUSER ROBERT K. RANDALL JOANNE THATCH ER SWANSON JOHN W. HENDRICKSON, JR . Tl MOTHY 0 . GRATHWOL _, January 14, 1981 AMY M. SILBERBERG City of Orono P.O. Box 66 \ jrt\ \ 9 \98\ \ \ I \ ~L-o-~~/ \~-----Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Alan Olson RE: Our File: 1723-5 Dear Mr. Olson: The hardships ex~sting with regard to the Lorge property are: (1) The City of Orono and their predecessor allowed lots to be platted in such a fashion that the acreage requirements were met by the plat for each lot but the width of the lot was insufficient to meet current use standards because the City allowed sixty foot widths. (2) Allowed separate tax statements to exist where the City could have ordered a combination thereby creating notice to Mr. Lorge when he purchased the property under the assumption that he was buying two lots. (3) A visual inspection of the neighborhood at the time of purchase would also have led Mr. Lorge to believe that a person could build on sixty foot lots and most surrounding lots are sixty feet in width. (4) The existence of the lake on one side and the road on the other side of the property containing enough land area to substantially meet the zoning code requirement for two building sites. These are things that Mr. Lorge had no control over and is the hardship that brings him to the council. There is precedence set by this City in similar requests when land area is sufficient for two building sites but because of the configuration of the area and the physical restrictions of road and lake, a division of the property was allowed. Further, there is_ no material effect on public health or safety by granting variance. I seriously question the logic of the single common ownership interpretation being placed on property by the City of Orono. The only way that single common ownership doctrine makes any logical sense is that the ownership of all of the property has been in single common ownership from patent title. Once title to the property has been severed so that two separate chains of title exist, then the property should pass the single common ownership test. This does not mean that every piece of property should be built upon, but the property should not be discriminated Mr. Alan Olson page -2- January 14, 1981 against because of single common ownership at a later date. To adopt a different concept results in substantial inequities. If the two separate owners of these two parcels had continued in title until the adoption of the zoning code and then sold to Mr. Lorge the day after the adoption of the zoning code we would have two building sites. What if Mr. Lorge had acquired title to the land after the amendment to the zoning code but a subsequent amendment to the zoning code rezoned the area to a different use and again adopted the code. Lots that were buildable after the adoption of the first zoning code would no longer be buildable. In one case a citizen with knowledge of the interpretation of the single common ownership clause could place title in two distinct entities thereby creating a severance meeting the requirements of single common ownership. An uninformed citizen would be precluded from building on his property although there was no single common source of ownership back to patent title. I feel that the City of Orono the single common ownership test. stricted to situations where title same person back to patent title. only been one parcel of land, one and platting of that land had not should rethink their interpretation of Single common ownership should be re­ to the property has been held by the Under those circumstances ther has owner of that parcel. The subdividing changed the nature of the land. We respectfully ask you to reconsider your decisions concerning single common ownership and on reviewing the facts that Mr. Lorge's request for a variance. To do less would be an injustice. LBO:llg CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices Telephone 473-7357 TO: Richard Lorge Rt. 1 Box 170 D Carver, MN 55315 Copies to: Louis Oberhauser Control No. 581 Meeting Date _1_-_1_2_-_8_1 ____ _ Notice Date 1-16-81 ---'=--==----=c=..----- x Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision, Final •*********************************·k************'kk*************'kk*******************-J COUNCIL ACTION Vote: _.3_ For _2_ Against Abstention MOTION _ _s.C~o~u~n~c~j~J_,_t~a~b~J~e~d__._t~b~e;.....__ia~p~p~J~i~c~a~t~i~·a'-'-'-'n__._t~a,__._a~J~J~a'-'-""w_.....M~r-~O~b._..._e~r~b~a~i~,s~e"'-'-r___.._t~i~ro=e...------- to present written explanation of applicant's claimed hard- ships. ':"k****************************************'kk************************************1rk*"1 DEADLINE DATE J-]2-81 for the next Crnrncil meeting for submittal of new information (application may be considered formally withdrawn if information-or explanation is not provided). for Work Permit for work to begin for work to be application completed WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED -contact Building Inspector before beginning work. VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans. Do not change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval. CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use, or on deadline date specified above. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -Applicant must provide all information and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning Administrator. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -Applicant must have drawings, resolution and all other required doclllilents recorded, with certification of such recording returned to the City by deadline date. Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date. LAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JANUARY 12, 1981 Page 4 5. Payment of additional fees including: a. three sewer unit charges: $225 each= $675 b. Three SAC unit charges c. Park dedication fee d. Building permit and plan review fees . Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). Alan Olson, City Planner, reviewed with the City Council th~ application for a subdivision for Bruce Hepp at 2605 West Lafayette Road, dated December 30, 1980 . Mr. Franz Jevne, attorney for Bruce Hepp, and Bradley Hepp were present . Mr. Jevne presented a letter to the City Council concerning the subdivision request of his client, dated January 12, 1981 . Mayor Van Nest moved, Hannah seconded, to table the request of Bruce Hepp for a subdivision at 2605 West Lafayette Road, for time to review the lett e r from Mr. Jevne that was pres e nted to them this evening. Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). Mr.Orton Wisegarver and his attorney, Louis B. Oberhauser, were present . Hannah moved to table the conditional use permit for Orton Wisegarver for Keller's Market, 3800 Wayzata Boulevard, for Mr. Oberhauser to review the proposed resolution. Mayor Van Nest seconded for 'discussion purpos e s. Discussion included repair of on-site septic system, mechanical permits, $10,000 performance bond, and making the lights on the sign inoperable. Motion, Ayes (1) -Nays (4). Councilmernber Hannah Aye. Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to adopt Resolution #1239, A Resolution Finding Facts And Denying SITE PLAN 3701 Shoreline Drive (Continued) SUBDIVISION 2605 West Lafayette Rd . #545 Bruce Hepp CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3800 Wayzata Boulevard #561 Keller's Market RESOLUTION #1239 Deny Kellers Market The Variance And Conditional Use Permit Applications Made By Orton And Vicki Wisegarver. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (1). Councilmernber Hannah Nay. Alan Olson, City Planne r , reviewed with the City Council the variance r e qu e st of Richard Lor ge, 2697 Casco Point Road. Mr. Lorge and his att orney , Louis B. Oberhaus e r , were present. /VARIANCE 2697 Casco Point Road #581 Richard Lorge (Continued) REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JANUARY 12, 1981 Page 5 Paurus moved, Hurr seconded, to table the request VARIANCE of Richard Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road, for a 2697 Casco Point Road variance to allow Mr. Oberhauser time to present (Continued) written explanation of applicant's claimed hardships. Motion, Ayes (3) -Nays (2). Councilmembers Butler •and Hannah Nay. Alan Olson, City Planner, reviewed with the City Council the subdivision request of Lindgren Properties for 4505 West Branch Road, dated January 5, 1981. Hurr moved, Butler seconded, to give preliminary approval for the subdivision request of Lindgren Properties, $Ubject to the following conditions: 1. Two lot subdivision per preliminary survey dated July 26, 1977, as revised showing soil evaluation data. 2. This property does not abutt the channel shown located east of the property. Neither lot is riparian. There will be no existing or future lake access rights to this property. 3. Drainfield sites are approved per Hickok reports dated October 30, 1980 and November 24, 1980. 4. Access to each lot will be directly off County Road #151. West Lot 1 to use existing access. New access to east Lot 2 must be located and approved prior to construction by City, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and Hennepin County Department of Transportation. 5. No filling or alteration of wetlands is permitted ,except for the new driveway to Lot 2 and then only after approval as above. Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). Mayor Van Nest reviewed the subdivision for H. R. Johnston for the purchase of City property. Paurus moved, Hannah seconded, to approve the amount of $8,000 for 1.2 acres of City property conditioned on the following: 1. Six lot subdivision per preliminary survey dated September 10, 1980. SUBDIVISION 4505 West Branch Road #588 Lindgren Properties SUBDIVISION #582 H.R. Johnston 2. On-site soil evaluation and drainfield areas approved per Michael Gaffron memo dated October 30, 1980. (Continued) --------------------------------------- ti ----;:--_, . ,, ~nr t.f l'ir11 to of ~lii\'t~y for Clurlns I':, I.J:f ~~ rt, j , / swty Im<' of . -;;--:r ----.. . i-r-. L,,I IJ4, .fl'ring f'lfr . ' T I ~'\ in Cov1~rnm,:?nt Lot 4, Sectiun ·20..ll?-2J l ...} A.o l fl ?s ' Lo, l 9, (,f.f I ~ I.--A~6. !>6.t 4 So o P L.4.Jc:i VI (I.() ~Ot\,f 0A1C../(. l? ' •r.· i"'it.,tiUO~t,'O IS (4,-it'°I ,.~~~"''""-= S'OO ,-ti I rt.() i, It\ 2.o-t't or 1>'1 141 ~ "l,"l'i$"" 1 r,itVCW"lo( t.('3{° T hnrAby c-P.r'tify ·,tlmt ' iVllN ArtovNO ~S'O thin 1 s n trut? and r.orruc t TL ~-, f ( reb1rAsnnttttjon of 11 survn;.-of' th11 MIia "-~ Cl1'V'-fL IVU.J1f,, 11\Jc.Lv1:it.. houncl!1rtos o!' ih!lt n,-1rt or f.iovornn1~nt Lnt r;, ,,.ve.s ._,' ·~or.lion 20, To\.'T\ship ll7 tlort1, lt1anec ,..23 ·,;,.:!l t. .. of th e 5t h :",; 1: ,.. ,,,,.!J • ,1 I • ~. / _., #~ /J~,e ~ 1-t 2-'l1 6y ·inJA, Prir.dpol Mtiridian, noscrtb,~tj r,s !'oll::n:s: flnt:innln;_· 011 tho shr,ri: or . ,, . ;• · • , . 1!· ' I : • .rtkl! :-~irin<•l r,nka nt tlrn JXlint 01· !nt~rae•~t1 ,i n . ,:ir i;1dii :il ;ore w1 tla a U.rw dt'li\JTl • , µ,1rr,llul \.'ith ar.d 90 feot Sout.h..,':!s1.erl ;·, rrn n !;1;rP.d Rt d:::l •t. l,r,(lP.o 1 fr 0 rn the Southwesterly . llne o!' Lot lJI,, Sprinr, Pflrk; th,rnce ~,outht11¼1'ttirl :• rJ 1Jr~llal 1,1ith S!Jid Sout.h'w'osterly llne of I..J:1t 134 and its Southeast­ erl;· cxt1n,:;io11 t:, tho SouihvestArl ·1 line or Cttsco Point rwad (fo_rir erJ.y nrono Avenua); ~i1enr.e ~outherly alone aaid , 1. S outh\.1011l u rl-t Uno of Cunr.o Point noun :to its nol!it of int•.~rsoctiori vith a Ur.a dru•,.n pur11llt1l ',,11th and 150 feet ,South­ wost -:"rl:•, 1TC;1sur~d nt rieht an rks; fr ;ru tho ·:l~uth1,.-o:::t~rl" llne of s•dd Lot l3L.' arid it.ri So~the1;sterly extension; thence r:ortt~,.wst.e rly p.r1r!1ll.al with ~aid So11t.}lwe~terl:1 lin e of JJ~ LJL. t!nd its Southee.sterl_v, 9xtEinsio11 to said •shqre; tnence llort~eas t,~rly alone snld sl-,ord to ,tile JX>int o~ b t,e1 r:rin,'., ~nd the lor~t .1.on ,of. aq buil:iinrr,s,'.if any, thereon, an'd all v ls Ible on r roo r h,:v,r, ts from or on s •• J rl 11, 11rl , ' -'· · · ' . , .,,,.-:;~· ,.. Scale: 1 11 = f.0' / ~"'---'--~-~ !)ate : f,-:>J-8 0 I C-ordon--R:-coffin ioe, ,-. 6064 o Ir o n ~rkcr •· ·-. .-und rurveyor and PlHnnt1r [),tum: NG\l!>-1929 I .t .1 j ' I Ft6v~lz'..,. 1 Lont.: l..,ak~, t-Unnesota .... _.\tA,,•,... I • I· ·I I I" ., ' .. •;1 I : J: ./ I I 1 • I' I ~· (f\ l, o<• I : / ofORONO / TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 0. A RESOLUTION DEN ING VARIANCES REQUESTED BY RICHARD LORGE FRQ\RDPROPERTY LOCATED AT 2697 CASCO POINT .a WHEREAS, th~ City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety-and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Richard Lorge has applied for a lot width variance to permit construction of a new single family residence on Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; comments and petitions submitted by neighborhood citizens; and letters and comments made by the applicant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby makes the following findings of fact concerning this property: 1. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential District which has the following minimum lot requirements: Section 34.552 Lot Area 21,780 s. f. Lot Width 100 ft. Front Setback 30 ft. Lake Setback 75 ft. Side Setback 10 ft. 2. Lot 3 is deficient in regards to lot area and lot width requirements as follows: Lot 3 actual area is 19,641 s.f. -short 2,139 s.f. (10%) Lot 3 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) 3. Lot 3 was owned in common with abutting Lot 4 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 265 by applicant Lorge from 1972 until May, 1980 when Lorge sold Lot 4 and retained Lot 3. 4. Lot 3 had been owned in common ~ith Lot 4 since 1920 by a succession of 5 different owners. Page 1 of 4 .. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF T H E CITY COUNCIL NO. 5. Lot 4 is also deficient in regards to lot area and lot width requirements as follows: Lot 4 actual area is 20,202 s.f. -short 1,578 s.f. (7%) Lot 4 actual width is 60 ft. -short 40 ft. (40%) 6. Lot 4 contains a residence which is deficient in regards to required setbacks as follows: Actual lake setbac k 64 ft. -short 11 ft. (15 %) North side setback 6 ft. -short 4 ft. (40 %) 7. Vacant Lot . 3 has since 1920 been used as lawn area for the residence on . Lot 4. With this use 'and with the lots in common ownership, the two lots combined met all the District zoning requirements, except lakeshore setback, as follows: Lot 3 & 4 combined lot area -39,843 s.f. Lot 3 & 4 combined lot width -120 ft. North side setback -66 ft. 8. The driveway access for the residence on Lot 4 crosses subject Lot 3 and enters the public street from Lot 3. 9. A steep hill on both lots precludes construction of separate driveways without major land alteration. 10. Access safety onto Casco. Point Road at this location is a conce r n because of a curve in the public street and because the steep hill on these lots reduce exit visibility. Having two driveways at this location would further reduce the safety factor. 11. Only 1 water service stub and 1 sewer connection stub . have been provided for both lots. Occupied Lot 4 has been connected to public sewer and water service and has been assessed for one sewer connection unit and one water unit. Vacant Lot 3 has not been assessed unit charges. 12. ffii.er service for the residence on Lot 4 was connected in 1 67 ia a line through Lot 3 to a service stub provided on L . (j Pag e 2 of 4 , . City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 13. At the request of applicant Lorge , the City Council on Novembe r 24, 1980 adopted. Resolution No. 1231 approving creation of private easements over Lot 3 in favor of Lot 4 to accommodate the e x isting driveway and utility services, with the agreed upon understanding of Lorge that such approval for combined use of the separate lots may be an additional factor in considering denial of the subject variances. 14. Both lots have been zoned for a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre, 21,780 s.f. since Ordinance No. 93 in 1967, at which time the two lots were held in common ownership by Kaare and Kathleen Gronvold and which lots combined met the requirements of this zoning density. 15. Richard and Jean Lorge purchased both lots in 1972, with certificate of title document 480490 recorded August 10, 1972 , at which time the lot in combination met the requirements of the 1967 zoning code, and at which time Lot 3 would not have been separately buildable without the same variances applied for herein. 16. In comprehensive cit y wide rezoning in 1974, Ordinance No. 172 changed the District designation but did not change the minimum lot area, lot width or yard setback standards for this area as originally established in 1967. 17. Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, has stated in the record that in January or Februar y , 1980, she received a call from a realtor asking about the buildability of Lot 3 at which time the realtor was advised that variances would be required. 18. Lorge sold Lot 4, but not Lot 3 , to Jerome Reinan on May 29, 1980, thereb y separating the parcels for the first time since 1920 and thereby making the separate lots substandard and deficient in regards to zoning requirements as enumerated above. 19. Lorge applied on August 29~ 1980 for a lot width variance for Lot 3, but not for any other variances, stating as a hardship that there was "no adjacent land available". (,• Page 3 of 4 • City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO . 20. Prior to the Lorge sale of Lot 4 on May 29, 1980, there was ad j a ~t land available to Lot 3 in the form ~~ of Lot 4 ~~ ;f-l'"Mc:• ~ I.J. ~...., U't• ,_ ..,Jt. ll' J. 21. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Lot 3 has always had value and been used as required area and yard space for the residence on Lot 4. 22. Any hardship resulting from the separate ownership of Lot 3 has been caused by the applicant 's sale of adjacent · Lot 4 eight years after common ownership by the applicant of both lots and thirteen years after -Ml □tit ~ of the applicable minimum zoning requirements ~ C '/''""" 23. Section 31.202 of the Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the lot of record meets 80 % of the required lot area and 80 % of the required lot width. Lot 3 does not conform to this Section because it is only 60 % of the required lot width and because it was in common ownership with Lot 4 bet ween 1967 and 1980. AND, FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the above findings of fact, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot width variance (34.552) and denies the other variances required for lot area (34.552), side setback (34.552) and development of lots f reco r d (31.202), finding in all cases that no hardship e x cept -imposed financial hardship e x ists to justify such variances. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the day of , 1981. ~_,~-~4,t,., ATTEST: William B. Van Nest, Mayor Walter R. Benson, City Administrator (j Page 4 of 4 TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council of Orono Bruce D. Malkerson Application for Richard Lorge for Variances DATE: January 8, 1981 ~ ~....t0~ I. Facts 6~~-~%(;)~ A. ~haveasked the Attorney for Mr. Lorge to provide to us a summary of the ownership of the property. We have reviewed that summary and after having asked various questions of the attorney, C have concluded that the basic owner. ship of the property, Lo~3 and 4, has been as follows: · c.,.,o. ~J 'fryS- -. 0 -1. J,9t 3-an:d . Lot. ,t-~e~e. acquired~y Ea:;;;;. sa-~ ..ti. ,c, ,. ~ c~◄c:e:e"l'"1rf:~\!G..__:t:; .. _ °""'" fru:,.J3Srf/ £ ( 0 I 2 · ~~~ ~r~Z,p~~~~:~~~d e}~k~~ 3. On May 4, 1910, Bloqmqµist ~~cquired Lot 4, no i · ~- mortgage_,rtl.JJ-Aj.CA~.t -~~ '"1~9 .. l,.a.M.~~ ~ !, ~ CA.,,~ • ·u .b."'-~ "'1 8'0 • ~ ~ On May 4, 1910, Lang~Femortgaged Lot 3~~ ) ~ • "'!i'lB'O • qQ_._ ~ . On May 25~ acquired Lot, 3 from Lang, ~3 Nt.&A ~bi'lO-~-~ On December 22, 1920, Hoy died and passed the ~. property to his wife, Helen Hoy. ~ U"!"~. _ _ JJ -~ ~ ~~ \ ,c' ~ ~ '?> (J.hS,I) ~ • . ---:i;;;--On December 29, 1921, Hazel B~oo quist_a qu~red tf~t 4, A50~~1!.':~;Il_ Bloomquis • * ~'32-\./3 'f1"~ ~T~~~ ~ . c~ ~ ~ (() ~ ~~H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ /~ ~~~ ~./;, b.1-~ On February 28, 1930, the eer t:iiieate JJras:ie±ssaetl ~ to Charles ~loomqufst and Mag,eie J3loo~quist f~~. It,, . Lot 3~. 4 IA>-c..-'I,,_"'-"-' ~ ~-~. ~_) ~ ~C.-,1,,1'-,,'-J -~-4, -"° 't:3-' On E 7bruary 28 ~ 19JO., 9,lJarJ as B~oomg-ai!ltG~d ~¼.:nt'~~~ .···~~¼9t-~acgu1,red .. LQ.t~,A,"-,_.,.---=-"~"-·--~ ¥?a~) f"°Y tf-.; 4-')~ «d,J Memo -Orono Mayor ·and City c.o,.1ncil ~ ~ ~. ~ .. Cri\OJ.~';?{ (.~z'lJ J. anuary. 8, 1981 ~.,Ar ~U:,r~J.-~nf)~~ -~ L~ ·~0..NJ... Page Two i \ • . .....-~~ ~ ... · · . 1 L , • ~ ~:b.l...t .. , .., t,.. . . ------~-,n----, f'{\,._,,,--o-o --rr ~ -·--,~ .,,,,,.,,...,,.,~,-•"~-~I ('t~~j)'•---i2~d· .. _..__ . ·· . ~ Lots 3 and 4 ©ft-a ~ . 1f (JV\ · wl ~ .· 1 , coatr«,€"e~ .. r e.ee;1~·zto -a~ee. 1904.h lots "...t ~ ... / ·t:o a..v..~.A,j ~~~~e;,7$(, ,Fe; ... ,, (, ~-1:,S .-. 1949)the Woodards .li.cqu1~~d ;'~1:~.}~. t .· 'Y.,\{ _____ . __ ~tguge ~. b/~/~~~ /fl . -. , ~o/', ~ · ·. 13.@1958 the Grondolds acqui~?and -'i!:,/u /IV\ ~?-"');tin~tgage on both~ ~ 11o(. V" . ~ (f"I) ~ · 8-/b79 14. ~:},-1972 the Lorges acquired both lotJs and 1'.r!!'O"" , ,ur~~-/mQE~~~it~~~-~~~ 5'.·· .In. J 977 }~ggie Dloomqei~-ear.:tJ,!,~~.ate ~~Oo-~ 0?7 ~~ .~a; 4. ~ I\'"' ~ I lo l \ -i Po'\"" ~ J I 1 y C),A/L, ,._, ~./Cf~Lorg~ sold lot 4 on a contract for deed to ~';,,, /~ ~CH_,J Reinan in • We tion' t know the stat,..';~.:_, • ~ '?f~ '2-0of that mo~~ <(-6--tu,-. .llU> ~ lok ,. ~-On ______ Reinan sold the proper l:::Y to Kane ;,,-_ · rJ6-J->30. I /'t? o by contract for deed? We don' t kn~~CL, ~f \..r O Iv.__,, ,.·.,,/J ~ ~ __ o,,. tha.~ m2!~gag!;.t --;: .. -J. A A..._ . • , ~ l &,* ~ -~ ~-~~..J..1--~-<-c...c:i ~ ~ • • ~ ~ ,;.~ ~ The important fact is however that the,properties have been (,,,,V--0 held in common ownership continuously since 1920 and at least since ? 1940 a single mortgag 7 has been plac~d by several different property . owners or,}:thJots S~Hltaneof::~:--1 /'1 ~P.~Lr . ~ t~8°1 8 ~ ~ f <t. ~-"~~ ' . l. • -Prior memos from the planniiig'staf have outlined the r;v:o~general facts concerning these Lots 3 and 4 and their relationship ~-l. to the neighborhood. I wish only to summarize certain facts at this iJv-time: ~ ~ t1J.~ · 1. If Lots 3 and 4 remain combined, ··~woof them meet .~i.o-t'f.the minimum lot area for one house. The house~:t! the setbacks v· except for lakeshore~ it is approximately 60 feet from the lake shore and the setback is 75 feet~ the existing hous1meet~ ~he side · /S, and rear yard setbacks. l,o-U:h, L ~ ~ +lf ~~ 2. If Lots 3 an~ 4 are sp. lit, then existing Lot 4, ~ ,A.,)i'/' requires the following variances: \ <;'1 '€ ~~ ~ , ~ ~ a. Area variance of7e~,:,. · -d,_._)t.i-u.o.<. ~3 b. Width variance of 40 percent, ; ~O :-. D... c. Side setback variance to 5 feet -50 percent. Mc.F ~ ~ -' ~ JA~; Memo -Orono Mayor and City Council January 8, 1981 Page Three 3. d. Variance to the common ownership provisions of the zoning code.~ ~r.2-0, New Lot 3 would requ\~e thi f~lowing variances: do_~~-~· a. Area variance ~~~ b. Width variance~ 40 percent. c. Variance to common ownership provisions of the zoning code. ~ d. There appear~ to be no need for setback variances. Numerous concerns have been raised about the possibility of granting any variances to allow Lots 3 and 4 each to be buildable instead of having only one of them buildable as has been the case in the past with Lot 4. Those concerns are generally as follows: 1. Drainage patterns. Lot 3 is used in part a.S 0.... drainage way for Lot 4 and the historical drainage patterns in the area. 2. Inadequate access to the public road and the fact that now there would be more vehicular access on a dangerous curve. 3. Utility easement locations. 4. Density imp~S\t. 3P on the neighborl\ood. .. * * . ,l,-· .•. -4,., s-: ~ ~·(Ar\ ~ ~ ~~~ ,,,------......... I~n-r-e-viewing the above concerns with staff it appears that following is the situation from their point of view. 1. Drainage could be designed so that the total hard cover of both lots together would meet the existing standards. 2. The private storm sewer could be protected in any new construction. The new construction would add some additional drainage to that drainage way which allegedly already backs up. We could require prior to the granting of any variance that the property owner show conclusively how those drainage problems would be solved. ~ . ~Access problems could be,alleviated to a certain degree by Memo -Orono Mayor and City Council January 8, 1981 Page Four requiring that both lots enter and exit upon thee isting curb cut on Lot 3. 4trrn regard to density, a review of the ots in the immediate area show that they have all been developed o existing 60-foot wide lots. Both Lot 3 and Lot 4 are 60 feet in width which is similar to the surrounding lots. There has been no development of vacant lots because there have been no vacant lots in this immediate area for years. This area is different from other areas on Casco Point where there are numerousJarger lots and 60 foot lots would be out of character with th~neighborhood. Some lots in the area have in fact been developed as sma le lots ·n area than Lots 3 and 4 individually. C, A review of the City Assessor's records indicates that Lorge 1purchased Lots 3 and 4 in January of 1972 for $49,500 and 4 ~­ placeaa mortgage of $37,000 on both lots. He r~cently sold_Lqt for $120,000. He is asking $60,000 for Lot 3 )~~fl..,,,(,.. for Lot A review of the Assessment 3 and Lot 4 as follows: \J A C .A-A.l"J' Lot 3/Land Lot 4/Land 1. 1968 2155 1995 2. 1970 3000 3000 3. 1972 9600 9600 4. 1973 12,000 12,000 5. 1976 16,200 16,263 6. 1977 21,000 21,000 7. 1978 23,500 27,000 8. 1979 28,400 32,700 9. 1980 32,300 37,300 10.1981 Not ~e ►available records shows the valuations Building 5915 5400 17,000 23,700 32,137 30,400 34,000 41,100 46,800 Total 7190 8400 26,600 35,700 48,400 51,400 61,000 73,800 84,100 r) ~◄:f ¥-rhe°in1y hardship to justify granting the variance being submitted by Lorge is that Lot 3 can be sold at a higher price if he is allowed to represent in the sale that a house can be built upon Lot 3. If that Lot in fact would sell for $60,000 one would have to subtract from 3ct...,...~i.§.~ission for a net value of approximately $55,000 •.. ,a is ~~3.ssume that if he had -sold Lot 3 with Lot 4 in the same manner in which Lot 3 and Lot 4 haaebeen sold in the past, that the purchaser of Lot 4 in a typical buy/sell arrangement would have paid a substantial amount of money for Lot 3 in order to have the additional open space -and to insure that no home was built thereon, but I doubt that the price would have been as much as Lorge expects to~ u~on the ale of t.-Lot 3 as an individual buildable lot. l-~-cr~---~.~~~~~~~~r-----. 'L,(_,rv.;rp:.., cJY'.. Cl Memo -Orono Mayor and City Council January 8, 1981 Page Five~· ~-(}. e zoning code provides the standards to be applied in the granting of variance in Section 32.30 through 32.371. The code provides that the City Council and Planning Commission should consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ~ Many arguments have been made that there is a nee ~ more light and air in this dense developed area, that the~rupon which the existing and any future curb cut would have to exit is a dangerous one, and that the granting of a variance for this substandard lot~would have an adverse effect on the value of LOt 4 and the other lots in the area. Moreover there is a substantial likelihood that the drainage problems could be exacerbated. Mr. Lorge has not attempted to show in any way that there is no drainage problem or that it is solv~able. Section 32.340 provides that the City Council shall make certain findings before granting a variance. Those conditions are as follows: a. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property; (These provisions refer to physical characteristics of the property and not to the fact that they are substandard in nature.) and b. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located; (again this normally refers to the physical characteristics of the land; there are other lots held in common ownership throughout the City of Orono along lakeshore property so it cannot be argued that this is the only case in which there are two substandard platted lots that were held in common ownership), and c. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant; (Lorge could argue that he would lose $60,000 iF he is not granted the variances. However one needs to be mindful of the fact that he paid $49,500 for the property in 1972 and that in 1979 approximately he sold just the lot with the house on it for $120,000. He sold that property knowing of the existence of the ordinance that prohibited the construction on a substandard lot that was previously held in common ownership with another substandard lot. Moreover, if he in fact had sold Lot 3 with Lot 4 he would have received a portion Memo -Orono Mayor and City Council January 8, 1981 Page Six of that $60,000 in an increased sale price on Lot 4. Howe er, even though he knew of the restrictions of the ordinance and h's realtor was informed of same, he chose to take the chance of sel ng just Lot 4 and attempting to maximize the overall value of bo h lots combined by thereafter obtaining variances to sell Lot 3~ It can be assumed that Lot 3 even if variances are not granted has value to the owner of Lot 4 or the owner of the property on the other side of Lot 3 because it could be added to their properties to make them larger and provide for buffering, etc. It could be argued that any granting of variances in this situation, would constitute nothing more than but a windfall profit for Mr. Lorge in excess of the -~~ profits which he derived from the purchase and sale.,of ,,,the roperty) (tEjlX.. and , , -. · ,,~i::r-... _. d. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the zoning code {It is clear from the zoning code and review of the Comprehensive Plan that it is the intent of the City not to allow for the creation of new buildable lots that are less than 140 f~t in width on the lakeshore for numerous reasons that are ilR :.ianumerated in the various prior reports and plans adopted by the City. There has been testimony concerning the inadequacy of the road system in the area, the problem with the existing drainage, and the need for maintenance of air and light in the areal and e. That the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. {It is a convenience to the extent that there is monetary gain only to be derived osA; from the granting of the variance which is not always the case in the granting of the typical variance. OtheL,wise this provision does not seem to apply). II. Review of the Applicable Law / ,. -,._-..,, .--cc-·.,:c.cn='~r,,,,~.0 -,.~-•c.,.. -~-~,-,,-"e';;,.._ TO: FROM: RE: DATE: I. MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council of Orono Bruce D. Malkerson Application for Richard Lorge for Variances January 8, 1981 ~~ Facts ~'%~,...:.(?-_~~-..... A. ~ ~ the Attorney for Mr. Lorge to provide to us a summary of the ownership of the property. We have reviewed that summary and after having asked various questions of the attorney, C have concluded that the b.· asic ownership of the property, Lo~3 and 4, has been as follows: · o.,o. ~J 'fryS-~ · 1. J,9t. J...,and .LoL. 4 ~e~e acquired.-{y Ea:;:; in-~ ..r.i. lQ t , L~.:.t;;. -. w---~tr/ .1 0 1 2. -en-~~ l~~Langum1 mort~age~~CJ1~Q~~iaa.' ~ 3. !'" May 4, i~~O,~q;i;;t;;,;ired Lot'~4~ ;o j '. 4~ .. mortgage., f'f\.J,.J..J..j. CfJ ~ -'...6 ~ ~ ""19 .. !:J 1-a.M.~~ L.o\\ ~ ~ ~ • ·~..,_ ~,.., ao. L(1A1. 1 On May 4, 1910, Langqm ~emortgaged Lot 3~....._,_ ) ~ •·"!i'°l8'0 .'Z\l..,...~~ On May 2 5 ~;.,.t:7 acquired Lo1:_ 3 from Lang~ ~~ Nt.i.A ~&S'lO--~~ .J On December 22, 1920, Hoy died and passed the ~ propertY, to his wife, Helen Hoy.~~-· .. JJ ~~ ~~~l~c'~(...~ '?,~ ~ • . ------;;;;--On December 29, 1921, Hazel Blo&~~u~red tf_t 4' ~o~.,.:~~~~fl_ Bloomquist,.~ . *. ~~:Z.'-/3 ~ ~--T~~~~ ~ ~ '-'~bCW-A ~)~ ~~=ff~;,~~-~2~:::~~~~~~~~ ~ On February 28, 1930,~h~±~-e!e~~~ to Charles. ~loomq~~st and Mag_gie )3.1 loooo~q q.uist f~~. It" . Lot 3 ~ 4 IA>"'l'...,'l,,_""'-U ~-~ .~· ~J ~ . J . ~~~ -c..o t:J-. lO-. On E7b~uary 2_8 7 123~. ~barJi.e B3::eoruq~d 7£.¼,"'r:~( -Ka~g-3:~~seg;1.11.red. '"k.Q.t~A_.,.,,, .. ,.~~"""""-v~~"-'f ?ad) Note that Lot 3 and 4 was held in common ownership by fr/bJf 'f-.J Hazel Bloomquist as early as 1920 and then by Charles and Maggie 4? Bloomquist in 1930. · 01 «~J CITY of ORONO Post Office Hox 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices j Telephone 473-7357 TO: Mr. Richard Lorge Route 1, Box 170D Carver, Minnesota 55315 Copies to: Bruce Malkerson Control No. Meeting Date Notice Date x Variance 581 12-17-80 12-22-80 Conditional Use Permit Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision, Final RE: 2697 Casco Point Road **********************************************-k-k******¼k***¼k¼k*******************7 COUNCIL ACTION Vote: 5 For O Against Abstention MOTION Council ratified Resolution No. 1231 regarding driveway easements as originally adopted on November 24, 1980. Review of the variance issue was tabled without discussion until the the January 12, 1981 meeting to allow the City Attorney time to consult with your attorney. **********************7cl****~***********~~***-kk7rl:**'"k-k¼k**7'k-k-k--k-k***************-1ri DEADLINE DATE ~anuary 5, 1981 xx for submittal of new information t~~~lX~M~IDCl:nXl)yX:tu?X~ ~~m~xicfxtixfMK:Mat:KXMttXMXXRX}i)i:ana:otorix;fEC:rro)tX~ for Work Permit application for work to begin for work to be completed WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED -contact Building Inspector before beginning work. VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans. Do not change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval. CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use, or on deadline date specified above. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -Applicant must provide all information and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning Administrator. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -Applicant must have drawings, resolution and all other required documents recorded~ with certification of such recording returned to the City by deadline date. Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date. REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, DECEMBER 17, 1980 Page 2 Alan Olson, City Planner, reviewed with the City Council Keller's Market application commenting that Mr. Wisegarver was notified of the meeting tonight and the applicant is not present. The .City Council discussed the application and noted that sufficient time has been provided to allow the applicant time to respond. Mayor Van Nest moved, Butler s e conded, to instruct staff to draft a resolution of denial to be reviewed at the January 12, 1981 Council meeting and to issue formal complaints for failure to respond to citations previously issued and to seek an injunction prohibiting operation of business without a valid conditional use permit and to notify applicant and attorney of action taken. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3800 Wayzata Boulevar d #561 Keller's Market Alan Olson, City Planner, reviewed with the City Council the variance request of Richard Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road. /4EAFFIRM RESOLUTION #1231 Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to reaffirm Resolution #1231, A Resolution Approving The Granting Of A Driveway And Utility Easement Over Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No 265, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). 7:25 P.M. Mr. Richard Speeter and Mr. James Henninger were not present. Hurr moved, Butler seconded, to table until the January 12, 1981 Council meeting the application for a conditiional use permit for Mr. Speeter and Mr. Renninger, 659 Minnetonka Highlands Lane, and to notify applicants of same. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). 7:27 P.M. Mr. Speeter and Mr. Henninger arrived. Hurr moved, Butler seconded, to return application for a conditional use permit for Mr. Speeter and Mr. Henninger, 659 Minnetonka Highlands Lane, to t h e Council table for discussion. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0 )°. Glenn Cook, City Engineer, reviewed the drainage that flows from Minnetonka Highlands into the lagoon area. 2697 Casco Point Road #581 Richard Lorge CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 659 Minnetonka Highlan c #586 Speeter & Henninger Mr. Speeter and Mr. Henninger reviewed their application commenting they would like to apply for a dredging permit. Mr. Speeter also commented they would be willing to grant an open space easement to control the area. (Continued) -• - ~EGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 24, 1980 Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to adopt Resolution Page 3 RESOLUTION #1230 Brooks Green #1230, A Resolution Approving The Plat Of Brooks Green, 795 North Ferndale Road, subject to private driveway and utility easement in favor of Lot 2, Block 1. Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). Messrs. Speeter and Henninger were present to discuss their conditional use permit for 659 Minne­ tonka Highlands Lane. Paurus moved, Hurr seconded, to table the request for a conditional use permit of Messrs. Speeter and Henninger for 659 Minnetonka Highlands Lane, for further information to be presented at the next Council meeting. Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator, informed the City Council of the status of the variance request of Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road, stating tha~ no action is necessary tonight. Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator, presented the City Council with a status report for Keller's Market, 3800 Wayzata Boulevard, dated November 21, 1980, stating that no action is necessary tonight. j Mayor Van Nest moved, Hurr seconded, to adopt Resolution #1231, A Resolution Approving The Granting Of A Driveway And Utility Easement Over Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 265, Hennepin County, Minnesota, 2697 Casco Point Road. Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). Mayor Van Nest moved, Butler seconded, to approve a public hearing for Nelson/Crear, 3701 Shoreline Drive, regarding industrial revenue bonds for the first Council meeting in January, 1981. Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). John Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator, informed the City Council that the Arcola Bridge construction has been shut down for the remainder of the season with construction due to start up again in the middle of April, 1981. The bridge will be left in its present condition throug~out ·the winter months. Mr. Clayton Nolbe, Hennepin County Transportation, stated that they are sure that everything has been done to assure safe conditions through the winter. 795 North Ferndale Rd. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI 1 1 659 Minnetonka High- lands Lane 1 #586 Speeter/Henninger VARIANCE 2480 Casco Point Road Cortlen Cloutier #555 VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3800 Wayzata Boulevard , Keller's Market RESOLUTION #1231 2697 Casco Point Road #581 Richard Lorge ✓ PUBLIC HEARING DATE Industrial Revenue Bonds 3701 Shoreline Drive ARCOLA BRIDGE (Continued) l· O 'NEILLJ . GRATHWOL 1905 -1974 JAMES N . GRATHWOL LOUIS B . OBERHAUSER ROBERT K. RANDALL GRATHWOL, OBERHAUSER & RANDALL .11 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1421 E . WAYZATA BOULEVARD -SUITE 210 WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 (612 ) 475-2401 JOANNE THATCHER SWANSON JOHN W . HENDRICKSON , JR . TIMOTHY 0 . GRATHWOL November 19, 1980 Bruce Malkerson, Esq. Attorney at Law IDS Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota Re: Richard Lorge Our File: 1723-4 Dear Mr. Malkerson: As requested by Lou Oberhauser, on November 14, 1980 I did a vault search of the Lorge property. I found the following certificates: 1. Number 1056 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. call 154.34 feet Number 1475 issued May 8, 1907, Otto S. 1897, Angie T. Sweeney, 90 feet ,!_,p 1<:/ .5 Langum, mortgage number -,,.,,7·1--·<-<----:-i,' I<-<'~ 0~-- . , --,.o ,.,.· -_ ·--&·-• ; _.;/•:--.::;>---\ -.::....,.._..3_......,__(l 'Number 3779 issued May 4, 1910, Charles A. Bloomquest, no mortgage, 150 feet 1----y-{ f Number 3780 issued May 4, 1910, Otto S. Langum, mortgage number 7488, 90 feet L~ 3 Number 6810 issued May 25, 1912, Patrick H. Hoy, mortgage number 11049, 90 feet C::.-l,r-b 2, ,, Numbe.r 21348, issue~ __ Dec _-.,.,22, _110, Helen Hoy et al, no mortgage, 90 feet L,r ~{ ;; -C:f._.c...-'(_-;7 _,,..,,,...,_ Number 23243, issued Dec. 29, 1921, Hazel K. Bloomquist, no mortg- age, 150 feet (__ ~ c.J-,,., Number 2145, issued Nov. 30, 1920, Hazel K. Bloomquist, no mortg- age, 90 feet c!.---o i 3 ,. Number 47223, issued Feb. 28, 1930, Charles A. Bloomquist and m_aggie Bloomquist, no mortgage, 90 f_eet _ --------<~ / ' .. -·--........ L -? /J4_g6{J / ~'-/, .. 'Jl..:' ~~ --o"'( ~ i.,?. : Q , __ ··-----·-____ __.,., :) .. Bruce Malkerson, Esq. James N. Grathwol, Esq. Re: Richard Lorge Our File: 1723-4 Page 2 Number 47222, issued Feb. 28, 1930, Charles A. Bloomquist.1 '1-nfl Maggie Bloomquist, no mortgage, 150 feet "7;,-f..-._,.IJ_:1 •• .;:.3 i. ,:,.,---{ l CD ~5<.r-,-.._ '11 Number 61460, issued Sept. 2, 1977 Maggie Clark Bloomquist, ~ l .,1~.,/1,r-- r , /'. •1; •- no mortgage, ee ,-,~ ~J._J---cf .>,.-J. •. -l.,., __ s-~t>--✓......---"' r ,..""-. 150 f t 1 . . .. -s> -1 =~-{; L ... -1.~• •.. ¥-..... u ,:· ,,. ---. -·· 12. Number 61459 Maggie Clark Bloomquist, ' .... no mortgage, 90 feet '13. Number 70781 7• 'JI• .fO Archie Anderson and Vera _ -~-MeHn';\n:de~9n '( mor~g ~number 165540 Lumberman's -r , , ~ . ("_,,,,,J? ~ ' • ..,.._ """'7 c':.,.e -~ .... -~~~.::;.,;;;:,_.~...,,; ~-"' .... , :. ? ;> 14. Number 141095, voiume 4 60, Everette A. Woodward and Helen E. 5•◄ • 4(t; Woodward, mortgage number 283595, TCF 15. JNGrf Number 281699, Volume 929, Kaare Gronvold and Kathleen J. 4•?~ >~ Gronvold, mortgage number 502165, Twin City Federal /,C I {J CITY of ORONO Control No. 581 --- Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices Telephone 473-7357 Meeting Date Notice Date 11-10-80 TO: Richard J. Lorge Route 1, Box 170D Carver, Minnesota 55315 11-12-80 XX Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision, Final Copies to: Lou Oberhauser COUNCIL ACTION Vote: For __ Against Abstention MOTION -=Y=o~u=r,__,a~p~pi;;..=l=i=c=a~t=i=o=n~w........,..a-s_.t-a-b~J-e~a-~p~e~u~d~i~u~g,_r~e-v~i~e~w~b~1~r_._t~b~e_,_C~i~t~1~,_.....A~t~t~o-r-n-e-1~'----­ You will be notified when the application is rescheduled at the Council. k*****************************************-kk**************************************"k-k' DEADLINE DATE for submittal of new information (application may be considered formally withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided). for Work Permit for work to begin for work to be application completed WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED -contact Building Inspector before beginning work. VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans. Do not change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval. CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use, or on deadline date specified above. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -Applicant must provide all information and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning Administrator. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -Applicant must have drawings, resolution and all other required documents recorded, with certification of such recording returned to the City by deadline date. Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date. RtGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 10, 1980 Page 2 Butler moved, Hannah seconded, to approve the ''comprehensive Plan for the City of Mound. Motion, 9 Ayes (4) -Nays (0). I No comments from the public present. Butler moved, Hannah seconded, to adopt Resolution #1225, A Resolution Approving The Plat Of Taylors Two, A Lot Line Rearrangement For William Taylor, 2227-2229 Shadywood Road. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Mr. Casey was present to request permission to move his dock from Tracts K & L to the shore in front of his home. Mr. Casey: I do not understand open space easements. Mayor Van Nest: We want to have an open space easement on K & L that will preclude any dock or boat structure there as long as you have the dock and boat storage on your property . Hurr moved, Butler seconded, to table the variance application at Mr. Casey's request to have his attorney review the information. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to amend Resolution #1205 to change the driveway and utility easements in favor of Lot 3, subject to the excess driveway being removed and planted; carriage house being removed; and developer responsible to file the corrected easement. Motion, Ayes (4) -Nays (0). CITY OF MOUND* Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC COMMENTS RESOLUTION #1225* Taylors Two ., 2227-2229 Shadywood Rd., #366 VARIANCE 2785 Shadywood Road #462 Mr. Casey AMEND RESOLUTION #1205 1484 Shoreline Drive #541 Ministers Life Mr. Lorge and his attorney, Louis Oberhauser were present to discuss a variance at 2697 Casco Point Road. ✓v;;_IANCE t Bruce Malkerson, City Attorney, asked the following questions: Bruce Malkerson: Is there any driveway access onto Lot 4, directly from Casco Point Road now? Mr. Lorge: Most of it is · across ·Lot 3 Bruce Malke .. rson: When you sold Lot 4, did you grant the buyer of Lot 4 at that time, a driveway easement over Lot 3? 2697 Casco Point Road #581 Richard Lorge (Continued) .,EGl:JLAR ,MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 10, 1980 Page 3 Mr. Lorge: I said that I would give them an easement VARIANCE &Bruce Malkerson: Lot 3 will also have an easement W'over it serving Lot 4? ' Mr. Lorge: Yes Bruce Malkerson: At any time, to your knowledge, has anyone ever had a mortgage on Lot 3? Mr. Lorge: Not that I know of Bruce Malkerson: Has there been a mortgage on Lots 3 & 4? Mr. Lorge: Yes, about three years ago Bruce Malkerson: At that time, did you pay off a portion on that mortgage so that they would release Lot 3? Mr. Lorge: No, it was not necessary because of the equity in the property Bruce Malkerson: So you asked them to release Lot 3 from the mortgage and they decided that Lot 3 had enough equity in it so that they could release Lot 3? Mr: Lorge: That's corr_ect Bruce Malkerson: When you bought the property, you assumed the mortgage then that was over Lots 3 & 4 at the time, or did you put a new mortgage on it? Mr. Lorge: I think we just took a new mortgage . Bruce Malkerson: Do you know whether or not the people who owned Lots 3 & 4 before you ever had a mortgage on Lot 3 or Lot 4? Mr. Lorge: No, I don't Bruce Malkerson: Prior to your selling Lot 3, did anyone ever indicate to you, at any time, in any way, that you may have problems with getting the building permit for Lot 3, if you sold Lot 4? Mr. Lorge: No, I was told it was a buildable lot Bruce Malkerson: Did your realtor tell you that, the first realtor? f Mr. Lorge: The first realtor used the phrase ·"grandfather clause 11 2697 Casco Point Road (Continued) (Continued) wGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 10, 1980 .l.iU . Page 4 e nruce Malkerson: The first realtor representing you was told before the lot was sold that you would have to come and get approval by the Council. Didn't your realtor tell you that? Mr. Lorge: The house was sold first, in a couple of days the lot w~s sold Bruce Malkerson: Did you have a realtor involved in the trading of the house? Mr. Lorge: Yes, Mary Robinson Bruce Malkerson: Did Mary Robinson ever say to you that there could be any sort of problems with the City or the need to get some variance from the City, in order to sell the house with the lot, or else to build on the vacant lot? Mr. Lorge: The man that bought the lot was concerned and went over to the City office and was told that it was a buildable lot. That's the only time the buildability of the lot came up Mayor van Nest: So, the sale of Lot 3 is contingent upon being a buildable lot? Mr. Lorge: That is correct Mayor Van Nest moved, Hurr seconded, to table the variance application of Richard Lorge and request staff to research questions and concerns of the Council for review by Mr. Oberhauser. Motion, Ayes (4} -Nays (0). Butler moved, Hurr seconded,, to approve the assessment deferral for Henry Skarp, 1045 West Ferndale Road, for the 1980-LS-l project. Motion, Ayes (4) -Nays (0). A sewer map showing the conditions of the sewer project 1980-LS-l & LS-2 was presented to the City Council. Mayor Van Nest moved, Butler seconded, to request the Minnehaha ~reek Watershed District to submit more information to justify their proposal as stated in their letter of October 23, 1980. Motion, Ayes (4) -Nays (0). f Letter -Pages 5-7 VARIANCE 2697 Casco Point Road (Continued) ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL* Henry Skarp 1980-LS-l SEWER MAP MINNEHAHA CREEK WATER­ SHED HEADWATERS TO: FROM: DATE: Council Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator November 3, 1980 SUBJECT: #581 Richard T. Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road -VARIANCE Area -Lot 3 Existing: Required: Variance: Lot Width Existing: Required: Variance: 19,641 s.f. 21,780 s.f. -2,139 s.f. or 10% 60' 100' -;nfT or 40% Common Ownership 1-1-68 1-1-75 Ordinance 31. 200 Ordinance 31.201 Lots 3 & 4 owned in common by Lorge since August, Lots 3 & 4 owned in common by Kathleen Gronvald & since 1958 Effective date of applicable Ordinance No. 31. 200 1972. Lee her husband is 1-1-68 and as amended 1-1-75 Richard Lorge applies for a lot width, area and common ownership variance for the purpose of creating a new building site on Lot 3. Lot 3 has 19,641 s.f. in area and Lot 4 has 20,202 s.f. Applicant sold his home on Lot 4 (see Exhibit 3) assuming that Lot 3 could be sold as a separate building site. He has submitted past tax records and an affidavit from the previous owners affirming that both lots were taxed independently never receiving benefit of homestead tax status. The Zoning Administrator notes for the record that last winter the realtor for the property, Mary Robinson, was informed of the need for a zoning review because of the common ownership issue. In June, a new realtor advised that Lot 4 with house had been sold and that Lot 3 was not included in the package. Lot 3 was for sale as a separate lot. In August, Lorge applied for a lot width and common ownership variance. In the process of review, the City Attorney advised that the application must also include a lot area variance. Lots of common ownership are subject to full compliance of the standards (Ordinance 31.201). The lots were in common ownership when he brought the property in 1972 -subject ordinance was in effect since 1-1-68. Please review the Planning Commission minutes enclosed in your packets. The minutes include discussion on the following: 1. review of similar applications 2. position of neighbors opposed to application November 3, 1980 Richard T. Lorge Page 2 3. applicant's position and course of action 4. position of future buyers of Lot 4 This has been a difficult review for the Planning Commission. In their decision to approve, the Planning Commission is very aware that they stepped away from their charge of strict interpretation of the code. In the light of previous applications dealing with the common ownership issue, the Planning Commission felt that they did deal objectively with the facts surrounding this application. Their concern is also reflected in their desire to review and amend sections of the ordinance dealing with lots of common ownership if Council so directs. If the variances are to be approved, staff would recommend using the Planning Commission findings and conditions plus one additional condition as follows: 4. One curb cut (existing) to serve both lots 3 and 4. If driveway is not to be shared, the future driveway for lot 3 may be severely restricted based on the steep topography and effects on drainage basin. A new curb cut would require extensive grading to have acceptable sight distances. If Council chooses to deny the application, staff recommends the following findings be included: 1. no apparent hardships demonstrated 2. lot width of both lots does not meet code requirement of 100' 3. lot area of both lots does not meet area requirement of 21,780 s.f. 4. lot 3 was in common ownership with Lot 4 for over 20 years -if a hardship exists, it was self imposed. 5. adverse affects on public welfare 6. approval would not meet intent of the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan 7. access and water lines serving Lot 4 run through Lot 3 8. both lots maintained as one yard 9. impossible for each lot to function independently 10. house on Lot 4 does not meet required side yard setback of 10'. All of the above were considered by the Planning Commission in their deliberations. CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices Telephone 473-7357 Richard J. Lorge Route 1, Box 1700 Carver, Minnesota 55315 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Meeting 10-20-80 Votes: 5 For __ l_ Against Plan~ing Commission recommends the following: Approval: As submitted Control No. 581 xx ----- Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision, Preliminary Date of Notice.:;__=1~0_-=2=1~-~8~0=--- X Approval: Subject to conditions noted at Planning Commission Meeting ___ Approval: Additional information required before Council meeting Denial: For reasons noted Tabled: Pending receipt of additional information from applicant Tabled: Pending review by others, or further Planning Commission study No action required NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS jxxj Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: □ Planning Commission Council November 10 1980 Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the meeting is for the ____________ ; or meeting. In all cases, the application requested information within or the City will consider the must be continued with the submittal of application as formally withdrawn. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Administrator. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission Minutes they are available from the Building and Zoning Secretary upon review and approval by the Planning Commission. ·-. EXHIBIT "2" MINUTES OF A PLA~NING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1980 -PAGE 2 Tom Lowe asked the applicant if he signed the driveway easement serving the Hannah lot. Hepp stated that he did not know, but that he would check .his records and report back to the Commission if they required this type of information. Lowe restated his concern that if Mr. Hepp required any variances that the hardships be stated for the record. Hammerel moved to table the application pending staff resolving question of lagoon a~ea being credited as shoreline. Applicant will submit new plan once determination is made. Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes {6), Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. The following persons were present: Richard Lorge, Mary Butler, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hunt, and .Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Kane, future owners of residence on Lot 4. Mabusth reviewed points raised at staff meeting with Bruce Malkerson concerning the question of common ownership. Commission is advised that the standards set forth in Section 31.202 of the Ordinance only applies to single separate lots. Lots of common ownership are required to meet full compliance with the standards of the code. As to the question of ownership of Lot 4 and how we act on the common ownership question if Mr. Lorge is no longer the owner of subject lot. If th~ lots were in common ownership as of the effective date of this ordinance, the applicant is still legally responsible. Mabusth restated again for the record that late last winter, she advised the realtor for the property that a land use application would be necessary because of the c?mmon ownership question. Planning Commission reviewed the four previous applications that staff was to report on for this meeting. Two were subdivision applications on Casco Point involving substandard lot widths. One, an R.L.S."on Casco Circle was approved prior to formal subdivision review procedures and the other (Joe Braun), r·eviewed in 197 8, was denied on the basis of substandard lot width. The remafning applications involved area and lot width variances. One involved approval based on substandard lots being combined, the other (Watson) was approved on the basis that lot was not physically maintained as one and that lot was bought some ten years after applicant purchased their homestead lot. · BRUCE HEPP 2605 West Lafayette Rd. SUBDIVISION . (#545) Cont. ~RD LORGE 2697 Casco Point Rd. VARIANCE (#581) MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1980 -PAGE 3 Lo~ge again reviewed his position and added the following comments: 1. If he were aware of the common ownership ordinance in 1975, he could have-placed ownership in the name of another relative. 2. The exclusion of common ownership lots from the code and the setting of different standards for single separate lots is discriminating. 3. The·code has no statutory protection for preventing this kind of condition. RICHARD LORGE 2697 Casco Point Road· VARIANCE (#581) Cont. Mr. Lorge continued with a review of his plan of action or priorities. He would prefer to offer the lot at a lower price to the abutting property owners. If Council deems the lot unbuildable, he loses all bargaining power. If Council approves Lot 3 as buildable, he would still prefer selling to the abutting property owners. Bob Hunt said that the subject property has been in common ownership since 1942. Both lots have been maintained as one yard. Yard light and switch are located on Lot 3. Driveway, trees, in fact all improvements suggest use as one yard. Al Kane, future owner of Lot 4, had the following comments: 1. Drainage problem exists and he worries about his investment ff additional hardcover is added to overburden drainage basin. 2. Bought Lot 4 assuming Lot 3 was not-buildable. 3. Questions area quoted in recent surveys. 4. He would never agree to a shared driveway situation with Lot 3. Frahm moved to recommend approval of Richard Lorge's lot width variance of 40' or 40%, lot area variance of 10% and common ownership variance based on the following findings: 1. Lot is 90% of required area. 2. Lots on both sides are occupied . • 3. If Lot 3 were built on, it would be typical of neighborhood development. 4. When purchased, applicant was informed Lot 3 was a separate lot -price was based on that fact. MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1980 -PAGE 4 5. Property taxed separately -never received benefit of homestead relief. 6. New building site will not create a new curb cut. 7. A house comparable in size to those in existing neighborhood could be located on lot meeting all setback and hardcover standards -even if additional 4' is required on left side yard. 8. Of some 24 homes in the Casco Point neighborhood 19 are 60' wide or less. and subject to the following conditions: 1. No zoning variances will be granted with a building permit. 2. Drainage and utility easements must be worked out between the two parties. RICHARD LORGE 2697 Casco Point Road VARIANCE (#581) Cont. 3. Engineering study of drainage area must accompany building permit. In addition, Planning Commission recommends that the sections in the ordinance dealing with common ownership be reviewed specifically to address the issue of preventing misunderstandings of this type and establish realistic standards in consideration of existing neighborhood development patterns. Motion seconded by Rovegno. Vote: Ayes (5), Nays (1) Jabbour: "It is difficult for me to vote against the motion, but our code is too specific in the case of common ownership. As a member of the Planning Commission, I feel that I should vote against it as there have not been several examples which have given us a substantial guideline. If the Council sees it fit to grant the variance, it would do so very easily and possibly set a precedent to g~ide us with similar cases in the future." Mr. Lorge asked that his application be scheduled for the Council meeting of November 10, 1980 because of business 9onflicts. TO: Planning Commission and Council FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator October 16, 1980 DATE: SUBJECT: #581 Richard Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road -VARIANCE At the September 22, 1980 meeting, staff was asked to review the following items: Review of Previous Applications: 1. Joseph Braun Subdivision -applicant applied for a two lot subdivision sometime before 1975 and received approval, but he failed to file the plat. Previous to 1975 the City had not established formal review procedures for subdivisions. He attempted to get City approval in order to file the plat sometime in 1978 and was denied by Council because of the lot width required. Each lot would measure only 50' in width. Council denied the granting of such variances with subdivision application because of its adverse affect on the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and public welfare. 2. RLS 1333 -a subdivision filed in 1970 of 2-1/5 acres into three lots (remember-before City had formal review procedure). Lot width was not satisfied. 3. Paul Berglund (Harvey Johnson) -Lot Area/Lot Width Variance Lot was approved as a buildable lot. Variances required: a) area -43,560 required 28,760 existing b) width -140' required 100' existing 4. Robert Watson -Lot Area/Lot Width -common ownership variance Common ownership of lots for 15 years. Lot area -required 43,560 s.f. -existing 26,800 s.f. Lot Width -required 140' -existing 100' On May 22, 1979 Council approved the lot area, lot width and common ownership variance of Robert Watson based on the following findings: a) lot clearly set aside as a separate building site b) lot area is .66 of an acre c) new building site will not create a new curb cut Staff had advised Council that you could not grant a variance to the common ownership section of the code. Approval could only be granted by rezoning property. October 16, 1980 #581 Richard Lorge 2697 Casco Point Road VARIANCE Page 2 Opinions of the City Attorney and Public Works Coordinator will be discussed at our meeting. Options opened to Planning commission: A. Deny variance application of Richard Lorge based on the following findings: 1. no apparent hardship demonstrated 2. lot width does not meet code requirement of 100' 3. adverse affects on public welfare 4. approval would not meet the intent of the zoning code 5. property under common ownership for over 10 years 6. access and water lines for Lot 4 run through Lot 3 7. house on Lot 4 does not meet required side yard setback of 10' B. Approve of variance application of Richard Lorge based on the following findings: 1. lot area is 90% of required width 2. lots on both sides are occupied 3. if lot 3 were built on it would be typical of neighborhood development 4. when purchased applicant was informed lot 3 was a separate lot -price was based on that fact 5. property taxed separately -never received benefit of homestead relief 6. new building site will not create a new curb cut 7. a house comparable in size to those in existing neighborhood could be located on lot meeting all setback and hardcover standards -even if additional 4' is required on left side yard TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission and Council Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator September 15, 1980 SUBJECT: #581 Richard T. Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road -VARIANCE LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 -Application -Property Owners List -Survey Lot 3 & 4 -DaMart's Site Plan -Building elevation -Fact Sheet -Affidavits -Tax Statements -Contract for Deed -Lot 4 -Letters from neighbors -Minn. Supreme Court Decisions -Ogland File Mr. Lorge seeks a variance for lot width and common ownership of two substandard lots. He owned two lots of approximately 19,641 s.f. (Lot 3) and 20,202 s.f. (Lot 4). He sold his home on Lot 4 (see Exhibit 3) assuming that Lot 3 could be sold as a separate buildable lot. He has furnished the past tax records and an affidavit from the previous owner stating that both lots were taxed separately never receiving benefit of homestead tax status. The Zoning Administrator remembers telling the real estate agent, Mary Robinson, at least nine months ago that common ownership in this case would require a zoning review. In June, a new realtor informed me that Lot 4 with house had been sold and that Lot 3 was not included. The realtor was informed that if the lot met 80% of area requirement that a building permit could be issued -note, I did not consider that lot width would also have to be 80%. After a survey, Lot 3 appears to have 90% of area requirement but lacks 80% of width requirement. Planning Commission is asked to consider Sections 31.201 and 31.202 in reviewing the application. The neighbors are opposed to creating a new building site on Lot 3. Their argument is summarized as follows: 1. Too small and narrow a lot -standard of 100' or in this case 80' should be maintained. 2. Drainage concern -Lot 3 serves as a retention area, if additional hardcover is added, how will this affect neighboring properties. 3. Existing house on Lot 4 is located 6' from mutual lot line. 4. New house proposed for such a narrow lot is too ambitious. > • September 15, 1980 #581 Richard Lorge 2697 Casco Point Road VARIANCE Page 2 Water & Sewer Assessments Lot 3's sewer assessment was 70.2' of frontage at $12.00 -a frontage total of $842.40 Lot 3's water assessment was 65.1' of frontage at $5.80 per foot Due on Lot 3 if approved as building site -$805.00 ~ S'B"0.,.-:4,.➔ 2ZS"'s:••-C.C. ~ The Ogland file has been enclosed for your review. Please note the variance was approved because in this case of common ownership, the subject property was divided by Casco Point Road. Options opened to Planning Commission: If denied, the following findings must be made: 1. Lot does not meet lot width requirement. 2. Lot 3 was under common ownership with Lot 4 although taxed separately - Lorge still fee owner of Lot 4. 3. Proposed house is too large for narrow lot and additional hardcover will create drainage problems for neighboring property owners. If approved, Planning Commission should consider the following conditions and findings: 1. Conditions: -adequate lot width to construct a new home on the condition that new house be set back an additional 4' from south lot line and that size be comparable to neighboring houses -drainage concerns to be reviewed by applicant's engineer and reviewed by staff -shared access and driveway for both lots -water service charge of $805.00 2. Findings or Hardships: -adjacent land not available -taxed separately -lots now in separate ownership. Lot 4 owned on contract for deed -lot width typical of neighboring properties •• , i:..EGL'LJ..R XE£TING Of THE ORONO COUNCIL, AUGUST 11, 1980 Af a ~ Olson, City Planner, entered into the record the request of Graydon McCulley for the release of escrow funds ?ated August 8, 1980, which states: All private road improvements are completed. I recommend release of the remaining performance bond and escrow funds as follows: R~lease deposit: $5,000 certified check Refund escrow: original amount $500, receipt 8345 October 18, 1979 Page 8 REFUND ESCROW* Graydon McCulley less charges: $300 -4 road signs@ $75 each $ 27 .50 engineering fee $ 28.50 legal fee $100.00 4 staff insp. $25ceach ($456.00) Total refund -$44.00 Council Meeting -August 11, 1980 Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to refund the escrow amount of $44.00 to Graydon McCulle y , per the above memo. Motion, Ayes (5) -Nays (0). Alan Olson, City Planner, reviewed with the City Council Orono's response to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's 201 Facilities Plan. Hurr moved, Butler seconded, to approve the letter concerning the 201 Facilities Plan. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). Letter -Pages 9 & 10 201 FACILITIES PLAJ LETTER It was reported by Councilmember Butler that she 0N BUILD~BLE LOT had been informed by several people in the neighborhood 2697 Casco Point that a home on a lot with an adjacent vacant lot next · door, both of which were owned in common ownership by the same owner, was about to be sold in two parts: the house on one lot to one buyer and the vacant lot attached thereto as a separate lot. Councilmember Butler expressed the fear that the seller may not be aware of the zoning code requirement that two substandard lots together cannot be sold separately, but must pe sold together as one unit, and that the vacant lot by itself.·in such a situation is not buildable since it is part of the lot with the home on it. The City Attorney suggested that the City Council direct · the staff to inform the present property owner and the realtor of the provisions of the zoning code so that every interested party will be sure to know of those provisions of the zoning code. (Continued, Page BA) • • ;REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, AU~UST 11, 1980 Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to declare the lot located at 2697 Casco Point Road unbuildable based upon the information submitted by Councilmember Butler. Motion, Ayes (5) --Nays (0) • .. Page SA UNBUILDABLE LOT 2697 Casco Point Rd. (Continued) -v LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 473-7357 INSTRUCTIONS: Pleaae firat read the attache~ Information Sheet. Complete Itema 1 -13 (Type or Print). If needed, attach letter or other information to better deacribe your requeat. Incomplete application• will not be accepted. LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. PROPERTY ADDRESS 2.(p q '7 o<J $CO P-f, rR.¥J Legal deacription ahall be •hown on attached Survey, Exhibit J . APPLICANT Name ~ .:r, t,A:Jf2fs;( Mailing Addreas -='2.-b=-"--'-·~(--~~~K:~~l _-Z_o __ ·rp _____ --=-CA __ te_(ll!.i{._-+,_c.u_fl?_ 6'5'3(~ If Applicant h not owner, explain ______________ _ OWNER Name ____ S~!..-.:~::;..a-/..._ _____ Phone ___________ _ Hailing Address ______________________ _ Date Property Acquired 4-vG:> t 'i'12-(Month/Year) I. (do not) also own other adjacent parcels of land AGENT Name __________________ Phone ________ _ Firm ____________________________ _ Hailing Addreu ________________________ _ NOTICES Should be aent to: _L Applicant Owner __ Agent PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT _L=-r..6_,__-_.;.../_C.. _____ _ ! Description Initial Application must in_71 ude: 2 3 1 -1.L Application Form d _,,,rroperty Owners Liat _✓_ ~ CPertificate of _Survey 4 5 ~ Fee Receipt #1-/!::t2..6 Oat '-. Received '/-;J--,F-cJ By "\-,. Jj_ Jin . Staff In4 ormation _/Plat Map v p ,c.., rnto f .22 -<?b -f.C!...'{)1.:1:;, /IJ -:2 0 -'(O (p -✓~• Other In I nnation 7 8 9 10 11 12 PRESENT USE Residenti.al __ (Other) --'V,c_____::4--U,,::==-""-f-'------------- Vacant Land _.X_ Vacant Building(s) Occupied Building(s) . DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST$ ---------- eatablilh new uae _ continue or expand exiating uae 1S: build new add on remodel _ replace Describe request in detail: 9. VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED to do the requested Work: Lot Area ____¥,. Lot Width Hardcover __ Setback (_ Front __ Side __ Rear) Other ________________ _ 10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS irt"eventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Describe UNDUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY reau1ting from atrict enforcement of zoning 11. regulations 12. Describe EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK on neighboring propertie ■ and on the neighborhood in general: The APPLICANT and the PROPERTY OWNER must The APPLICANT hereby agrees co provide a'l.l information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his knowledge : Applic~nt Is ignaur sign and date this application. The CMNER hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further author~zes reasonable entry onto the property by City ataff, consultants, agents, co111Dission members, and Council members for purpoaes of investigation and verification of this request : APPLICATION DEADLINE TEN (1 _0) DAYS BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HC 1233 PROPERTY OWNE RS LIS T ,._ >'-OEPARTMENT OF FINANCE A-603 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ON THIS CERTIFICATE ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRE­ SENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DJVISION 1 TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ND BELIEF. CO . FINANCE DIVISION DATE f /r-,9) B~~~~~~I:--- FEE OWNER MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS ID Zo-I oo I cnn:,2. * CTUZ>J q ,,. Fr OPl> ~ ~ ~ C)OO I ) Zt> -111-v.J . - au ···"-----~--------------------------~ / <, ,. ---. :··,l>t. nf :·::.1~·,.•r,~/ ----A :Jf 0 14' r,J,?' j I-<·. , .. ~, f),_ r .. rn--J~~.c~}':1rd J, !,Gi>f'/:· ~n (~i:)"J~!rr::--:cnt :Jt 1 t ..1j-, !3cc ti.on ;:,r•-U.?-~?.l '· ·-N .... :i-··•, f:cnt:1t.ior-0:' n r1.:.l",1c;" oi~ t;~8 1Jc1Jr~:-~ur~ ·?:·! c:~ ·~l·t :.~-~ Cc:vr:·rnmrr:t i,ot li, --~,~etir:!1 ~.1c, ':'01-.::-~~~:ip ll7 "1n·•· :.-:i p:.11 J<eri;.Ji·1n, t1e:~r;-jbt"!(} £1~; f"r:lln1tn~: Pc;~~ri!:i_fl ·. ··-1·: tJ1f:! !Jojnt n~ Intt!r:;or-t:ic>~Al r,f ;;3jd 1,:1':r.; s1-1.c r"t··! ~,') ;_ .,.: ~3c1!ti·!\.Jnf;tPrl·,: lin-:~ of l,ot .L .. ~/4, ~-;yJrinr: i-~:1Y~-:, -~1~~:1 i : .. ~.1~--·;_,·_,~: ! :,c;uth\~1estc,r°i>.,-t,!v~r.:~f.rcr:i; l~,,lr,r:\ ;·,c,uthi,;:,t~-· tc:rl__·,· nr--:c~ ;<:r I l_ li.n•.-" ()f ::··1>: :,ot L•/. tc t.,,,. :;,11.1t.L\..c~d.rJ:-l·, l:L1•\ :," !•r•·::,-, :.1f'!l~ t./estr,\r.l_~_,.. a1onr thn ~~·f-;:;t<•r.L:.r linf) of' s"'~id Lrt".r:11 .. ~~.r1.;~1i•.:. r;c~tj nn of t·t:P \•ioslnrl:.r lj fh·-of r;~~-:l-~ C~onn J~~1 t.':r:,.J~ \-r~ t.:i t:. · .... t!;E'; So1!thi:c•~ t..l~r·l:/ Jtnt":! 0f :-JJ:: ~jot 1-:;~ ::!.:1'~ d::-~-t:r:t 2lC' r·.:.·-~, I nnf;lec. ti-,r:-rPrr,·-rn; th~-!n<·c· Frrt~1\..tr!;!,r~:-,.l·/ ::1.n:-:i 1)"'tr:}:1'--~l vi. ~t~ i~!~c· ~~~·:·;__:._ '. l S(!jd Let 151_ to th,:-: sh0r0. c!"" L!J_ko r:·1.-nr-et.. r.kn: t~;.:~1rt:: l'ic"l•L::,:.'. ;-'.t:~"··l~~ r;-~-:-­ s}iorP-tr, th0 point of' b,:::ii~nin1·;, nlL (i('C'GrJjl,r tr: th,· f>..i .. t r\· ,·.;,r·1n;· ; f­ l 1- r··--·--. I I I I I :in the cf."'1'i0c:· of t.Ju~ ?.ni1·i!-":1tcr of 1Jc,~•d~· in n111j fnr '.'i·>~r:ne,1:_:r1 1_:(_~---:1rit~_ .. , t-~inr ,_,: or· thc·1oc3tlc:l' of n.11 Lu.il:Jjn;:·s t~1cn ... ~·~r-n, nnG ri.~:_·~-vi!:·-11,l,·."! 1:\n~~·r:·1r~~~.;:.•:nt;~ f':·(·, Lr SH.id llinr.'. (Tn~ abcvo-de,.rril\f:d ,,:•cn·irt:; an::•,r.~1 '..l·,r ('17~'.ff!SO:• ~.1)(• lc,n,: 1 :;•--1 l v; to t~ inc l,,c,e.] ir. Lo t.s J nnd ,S, ,\udit, r's Cil.' <li v fr i i>r: i:u;d .. ,r ~1/. ) ; • 1/, ., ./Y<>~/ C /!4, _:::::::;¥_ -~ ~~':-~~l!:,~,'_fff~-f:!'ZC!J,,4)4,,!_ -- Sc.'..1.lc: lx1to 0 0 l '1 = 6r:1 :,-2?-74 Ircm rrarker found Iron marker net Gora on H, ,,0,f1n 1v.~1 ."i.e. 1 11,I,/, L::1ni ~urveyor nnc: i'lanner Lone L,.kf:, Minnc-::wt.•J. GORDON R. COFFIN LAND SURVEYOR AND PLANNER 3025 WATERTOWN ROAD LONG LAKE, MINN. 9-24-77 Descriptions for 1,J chs.::--d J. Loree in Government Lot 4, Section 20-117-23 ~ort~arl~ parcel Thc.t ;::iart a:' Goverru,.ent ...at!..,., Sc:ctior, :?C, To\..'nShi'J 117 North, ?..anpe 23 t'Jest of the )th rTinci~l ;_._:ric.Jian, descr:it,ed as folln,.:: l-leginninr: on the ['hore of :.,eke }·Iirmct::Lt:L o.t the _;.:ioint of inter:.:, ctior, of si:::.id shore 1,1i tvh a line dr::wT, )Xff::."..lel with and 90 feet Southwes1,erly, measurec &t right anfles, frc:-, the Sout 0 .\.le~;ter~;: ~i:::e of i..ot 134, Sorini..:; Psrk; thence S0·;1the,1sterl:; P<:'-r«llel i..:i t:1 Sc.id Southwesterly line of ,:,Ct 1;4 &nd its Sout.heasterlJ ext2n.::.ion to t.:1e SouFweste::--lJ .Line of Cl:isco Point Road (.:orL-?rly C.•rono Aver:ue); i..h-::nre Sout:.erl:, ulo::-.;· said South­ wester l.7 line o:~ Casco .Point fto::.id to its point of inter.sect ion wi t'r, a line cn,.w1, Parallel with 3:,-Jd 150 fec·t ::~uthwesterlY. mec:sureci at ri1·ht anFles. fro"'1 ~_,lie Southwesterly line of se.id Lot 134 and its Southeast­ erly extent.don; thence liorth1,1es1,crl,:.· 0c:.r,dlel with sc:ic Southwesterly line of ~ot 134 ~nd i~s SouLheusterl~ 8xtension to S3id shore; 1,hence Kortheasterl~-1:ilonr S8.ic shore to tne 1)()int of be~'.:inninr. Southerl'r DarQel That part of Gover1;_rnent :...ot 4, Section 20, TownshiiJ 117 t;orth, I,-.ant'.e 23 ·west o.-the 5th Principel 1.;eridiar,, descri oed us followE: Bee;;inninl, an the ;::r.ore of .:..Uke Einnetci.Ql at the point of intersection of said shore with a line draw11 oarallel wit:-: :~nd 150 feet Southwesterly, meas­ ured at rirht angles, from tic:: Sout~,we'sterl:: line of i..ot 1.34, Sprint: P&rk; thence Sout;,easterly nc.:.rallel ..-i fr. saici Soutrrwesterly iine of Lot 134 and its Sout.:;easterly extension to the Southwesterl.,· line: of Cusco .l"'cint Ro&d (forr:erl,; Orono Avenue); ther.ce Southerly alonf Sa.id South­ westerly line of C.asco Point Road to its ;x:,int of intersection 1,Ji tL a line drawn panllel with and 210 feet South ... esterly, measured at_ right ani;:les, from the Southwesterly line of said Lot 1.34 and its Southeast­ erl. extension; thence Northwesterly pare.llel with said Southwesterly line of ,:,Ct 134 and its Southeasterly extension to snid shore; thence Northeasterly alone said shore to the )Oint of be[Lr1!'1int • ~JI ---""';;---, SW/y /in~ ol ~ Loi IJ4, S,Pring ?$frk ·• --.,, ~'\ CA rt. J J'i r,i te Q !' :i I t1·v1~y for r.h~j r lns ~:. LJ:il•~ rt ~I 1u / l "'" ~ in Covernm,:mt Lot 4, Secti0n 20.. U 7-23 I/ :-- ,, f, ~l ./' 'v'r ·L.O'T.:-= /Cf,600 t-1. I ti-I \.A~E ~T 4, GOO f!)AC.. I< ::: _ . __ , ~:e,;i.\:1.-1 AL.LOW60 I S,COO ;¢ 2.5% of l~coo = -a;-1so 1'' I h1~reby <'~rtif,JthRt thiG is~ true and correct ret!rasnntfa tion of r, s11rvfl/ or thH houndr1rins of th~t Pt.1rt of Govornmrnt L,nt 1,, '7-cr.t1on 20, Townshjp 117 NorVi, hi,ne:i 23 ',,:~t ,Jf th'.:! :ith Prlr.cipa l Mt1ridiun, doscrlbt~9 as \'ol b\,s: Pt'tinni n;. on thn shc,r,~ of' :,nke )-'.innc,tc:n',w ut the point oi' lnt~r3,;,•tj:-;n ,:if i;id,1 i,hora w1 th a litl€· drtlwn p.•1r1,ll.,1l \.'i.t.h ar:d 90 feot Sout.hwo.s"t.erl··, mn 11s11r(•:1 qt 1•j:::1,t, t.ncles, frC'·m the Soutr:westerly li.ne o:· Lot lJJ., Sprint~ Prirk; t,h,:nr.e .'lour.r1t.!'.if'ttJr:::..• 'l•.:r•,llcl with s:.i:i1 f•;outh-wosterly line of Lot 134 and its Southeast­ erl:· cxt,ni;;ion t::i the Sout.h1west,,rl ·,i 1 ine of C,1sri:1 :1r:: int t(oad ( forrrer.:).,v Orono Avenuo); tilen~e Southerly a lone said Scrnth'wot1l1Jrl:1 lino of' Cn!ln,) Pojnt. rto,jd to i t:·i tx,l:it ,1f' jnt,~rsertton \11th a lir.Ei dr1.1,.,n f)llr111lt'3l with and 150 feet South­ wost•,·r-l:1, moasur2d rit rieht ani;•les, from tr,1:: :;outh1,.·<J~:tdrl." 11no of s•.dd i..c)t UL, and itn Southei,sterly extension; thence liorttr..iesterly pr~r·bllcl with :<aid Sontliwesterl:,r linP of' :,o~. LJ4 tind it11 Southee.sterly extension to said shore; thence Northeast1~rly alone; snid sr:ore to Ll1e point o:· bt1,,frrir.1'., •rnd the locat.ion of all buil:iines, if any 1 thereon, and all vjsibla onr.ro1.1r.hr,1nr.t::i from or on :;,;dd l!1tJ1:l, · • ~·,/"/ Scale: 1 11 = 1.01 ~(J'J;k;/L:- Date : 6-?J-1-.iO Cordon k. Coffin Rei.:, o : Iron 1!6.rkcr •·, L9.nd ~urveyor and Pl1mnar l'}i tum: NG\T)).. l929 . , 1 Loni:: Lrik~ 1 Minnesota UL..<' ,. I I• • I i 1, I. Contract for DN•d Individual to Joint Tenants Form No. 55M lH1llcr-U,l\'JS Lo., 1Urnt1eapoli."i l\1inncsor.1 Uniform ConYcya11ci11g IlL111k-. (Revi .... cd 1976) -m:uis Qlgre.ement, Jl,Iade and l'llll'red ill to this ___ }.1c1y , 1,9_ 80 , by and between Richard J. Lorge and Jean L. Lorge, husband and wife part_ ies .oft.he first part, and. Jerorne M, Rein@ aric1 Sharon .r. -T Mitnczsctb, That the said part ies -of the first part, in agreements of said parties of the second part, hereinc1fter containec. day of 1ena11ts and ... and agrer. to co111•e y unto said parlir.s oft he second part, as joint tenants and not as ten sin conunon, their assigns, the survivor of said parties, ancl the heirs and assigns of the survivor, by a ______ Warranty._ . _______ De I'd accompanied by an abstract evidencing good title in part __ ies .. of the first part at the date hereof, or by an owner's duplicate certificate of title, upon the prompt and fnll perfonnance by said parties of the- second part, of th/ir part c,f this agreement, the tract ________ of land, lying and being in the County of _____ Hennepin_ __ and State of J\1innesota, described as follorus, to-ruit: All that part of Government Lot 4, Section 20, Township 117, Range 23 described as follows: -Beginning on the shore of Lake Minnetonka at the point of intersection of said lake shore with a line drawn parallel i~<!l,~<1a~t~~ne..-9f Lot 134, Spring Park and distan~ 150 feet southwesterlf at i~h5j'~g~1~:$·.;;1t~_t:r_-. f;~~f_.,:;'•;,thenfe southe':sterly and parallel with the southwesterly line o ~~f.¥f,,9t'J}4· J;q: fh~ S'otl:th1"'.:e~terly line of Orono Avenue, thence southerly and westerly lq~'!',:th~•,:We.~p~r,:lr, ~in~ Pt said Orono Avenue to the point of intersection of the westerly · · . ~~~"th a line drawn parallel with the southwesterly line of said Lot 134 and distant 210 feet southwesterly at right angles therefrom; thence northwesterly and parallel with the southwesterly line of said Lot 134 to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence northeasterly along said lake shore to the point of beginning, all according to the plat of Spring Park thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County . .:Ind said f)(lr/ ies of the se1·011d part, in consideration of the premises, hereby agree to pay saicl part __ oft he first part, at_ wherever designated __ _ ___ as anclfor the purehase price ofsa'.d premises, the sum oj' One Hundred Forty Thousand.and no/100 ($140,000.00)-:-::-::-__ -::::-:-::-:-:::-::::_:-_ Dollarsr:;s in nw11ner and at tim.es follou,ing, to-wit: $100,000. 00 by property transfer; and , 40,000.00 the balance thereof with no interest payable as follows: The sum of $3)h~-' per month commencing June 29, 1980, and a like amount on or before the 29th day of each and every month thereafter until paid in full. Parties of the second part to have full prepayment privileges. It is understood by and between the parties hereto that there are two mortgages now of record against said property in favor of Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association filed as Document Ntunbers 1041485 and 1308523; that if Vendors default in said mortgage payments,Vendees may pay the Mortgagee directly and deduct any such payment as made from this Contract for Deed. The payments so made by Vendees may be added to the Contract for Deed purchase by Vendors of the Vendee's property in Carver County (see attachment marked Exhibit A), and shall be additional principal payable thereunder. Vendees are aware that Mortgage referenced under Document Number 1308523, in the approximate amount of $7,923.00 has to be paid in full if and when the property (Hennepin County) is sold. It is further understood that if the parties of the second part realize net proceeds in excess of $140,000.00 at the closing of property covered under this Contract; (net proceeds constitute sale price minus selling expenses including real estate commission, state deed tax, abstracting and recording costs), and the sale is before December 31, 1980, then the excess amount will he deducted from the principal on the Contract for Deed between the parties on the Carver County property. If not sold after December 31, 1980, all proceeds shall be paid to second parties. incurn 11 c,· company or ,·o!llpa11i,•s, to lw apprnv<'d l,y th,· parl leS of th" first part, aµ;:1i11st loss by fin· for at kast IIH' sulll ol The Unpaid Encumbrances 1>,,11ars and aµ;ai11st loss l,_y 11·i11dston11 for :ti l,·:L--1 1 ll<' ><lllll of The Unpaid Encumbrances I )ollars parnhl,· I,-, said par I ies of I il<' iirsl par I' their Ju,in" or a:-1:-.ig11s, a11d, in <'HS<' of lo.,...,, should t lwn· lH' any ~urplus ov,·r and ah""'' t !i,· ,,!ll.,1111\ t lil'11 "11·i11µ; said pal'I ies of 1 h,· first part, their h,•irn, or assig1is, 111!' lmla11,·,· sh:dl IH• paid ov,·r Io t "" s:iid part i,·,, of I \I(' "''''""! part :u; I h,•ir i111<-n·st shali app,•,1r, and I" d,·posit 1Yit 1~1 h,· part ies of I lw first part polil'i,•s of :,aid i11.,ur:w,·,•-Bui shlluld ill(• s,•,·011d pa1·1i1•:; fail to pay a11_\· it,•lll lo ill' paid In· said parti,•s u11d,·r 11,,, t,·rnis h,·rl'of, sanH' i'n:1y h,· paid by first par I ies :111d shall \ /(' fort lmii \J p:1valih·, with i111<'n·sl j \,('J'('()IJ, as all addil io11al Hlll0\1111 du,• fiJ'sl part ies UJ\d('J' 1 his cont rac:I. But should ddault 11(• !llad,· i11 1 Ii,· paynH:111 of pri11cipal or i11tl'n•st du,· ll':n·111Hl<·r, or ,,f a11v part 1 IH'n•of, 1 o '"' \,_\· s,•c·ond p:trl i1·s paid, or should tlw\· fail lo p:w f\J(' lax,·s or assPSSllH'llls upon said l:rnd, pr,·miullls upon said insmanc·,·, or to p,•rform am· 01· ''.ifll('r of Ill(' ''"v,·rnrnts, a,,y,•,·n1,·11ls, 1,•rn1s or !'011di1ions lH'n·i11 c·ll11t:1i11('d, to 11(• 1,y said s,•c·o11d parti,•-; k,·pl <>I' pl'rfllJ'JlH'd, the said part leS of llw first part Illa.\·, :d their opt ion, by writ I ,·n 1101 icl' d,•elarP 1 his co111 rnel c:rn,·,·11,·d :t11d I ,·rn1i11ai<'d, :l!ld all riµ;ht,, I it I,, and i11l,·n•sl a•·quin·d tl)(•1·,·11nd,•r 1,.v ,::1id S<'<'lllld parti,·s, shall ill('r('llP"n ,·,·as,· and \Prlllinal,·, and all i111prnv,•Jll<'11ls 111ad1· U}>llll lhl' pn·rnis1·s, and all 1m•;JJ)('n Is. 111ad,· hc·n·1t11dl'r ;;hall IH'illll!( 1 o said part leS '>f t !H' first part as liquid:1.1,·d damaµ;,•s for !,n·a,·h "f I Lis ·,."11I rJl('I li,\' said si·t·ond 1,al'lic•s, -aid 11<>ti,·,· lo IH· i11 a,·,·ordan,·c• with llw ,sfallll<· in ,;uc·h cast• mad,· and 1lrnvid,·d. :\'eithn 1111' ,·xtc•11si"11 of th,• ti,11,· CITY OF ORONO LAND USE PLANNING V ZONING VARIANCE INVENTORY VARIANCES REQUIRED DENSITY .H)N)MU.M J<EWJIUJ) >.CTUAL Lot A.rea ~ ,, i <f-01 l '!/-t t_p t/L~ fa O' Lot Vldth / 6 6 1 . SETBACKS HIN DruH REQU I Rm St.raeet. I (Front)L_ + 2 () L$.../u r--, 5 , Side / -~ /o' Side ____ _ J.Lar Bldg. to Bldg. La1r.eshore 75 F't.. 26 F't.. LOT JIJU:A EXISTING VJ.RJhNC?: ~ L 32A4 tfo' PROPOSED / 0 1 EXHIBIT 5 Zoning Use District CODE SECTJON /0 " :3~ -5'..S--:J- '/6 " 3tl, s.sr;,.... VIJUANCE CODE SECTI05 ~ ~ ---" ---" ---" ---" ---" PROPOSED, TOTAL HhR.DCOVEJl v:>.RIANCE HARDCOVER _BL =·~·=f~------- PERX.ITTED RARDCOVDt s.f. " EXISTI.NG HARDCOVER s.f. " s.f. " -"'-=-""-"'-----~" CODE SECTION s. f. Vtld Lake 0 - 0 - 75 - 26 rt. 75 rt. 250 rt. 25" Lake 250 -500 rt. 30:" Lake 500 -1000 rt. 35" ¾~ OTHER SECTIONS Building Height (max.) Parking (Ki.n.) LAND 'f-5o 041 !5,1¥:lr?-( REQUIRED EXISTING *2,-") 501 PROPOSED VA.RI>-NCE DIVlSIOli: __ plat RI.S __ unplatted ii lot.a/parcel ■ per application 31.831 34. 202 34. 202 34.202 34.202 CODE SECTICN AVAil.ABILlTlt': adjacent lot.a/parcel ■ <•) __ vacant. __ occupied __ sa,ne ownership __ ■eparate ownerahip January 1, 1975 Ownership __ single separate __ combined with other parcels not in this application TOPOGRAPHY include ■: la1r.eshore wetland ■ __ high ground __ level ground __ rolling hill ■ __ ■t.eep slope ■ __ open area ■ wooded ar.,a ■ GEOGRAPHY affecting application: __ w,usual lot shaJ>" __ unusual building location lot ■ize/shape: __ consistent __ inconsi ■tent with neighborhood dev.,lopment ACCESS, __ new __ "xisting __ city __ county/state __ private tlTILITIES: City sewer __ available __ connected; City water __ available __ connected •"ptic sy ■t.,.,, __ n""' proposed __ existing confornd.,ng __ existing substandard __ existing non-conforming LAND USE Subject lot i• __ vacant __ occupied EXISTING LAND USE compared to zoning use district: __ conforming use PROPOSAL affecu __ principal __ . accessory building or use STRUCTURES EXISTING BUilDINGS __ do __ do not comply with zoning performance ■tandarda Deficiencies: PROPOSAL TYPE: __ entirely NEW building or use __ review a ■ NEW building or use (cost exceeds 50:" rMV) __ review as EXPANSIOH of existing (cost leas than 50:" FMV) conditional use __ non-confonuing use --Existing building FAXR MARJCET VALUE (yr) ---$ ______ _ PROPOSAL will will not reduce an existing aubstandard yard dimen ■ion TAXES & ASSESSMENTS PROPERTY XD. Lota/Parcel ■ owned in common are __ are not legally combined for tax purpoaes. TAXES• are PAID current __ are DEL:INQUE:NT to year ____ _ A..••••-nt.■ Levied, Sewer (no) unit• Wat.er (no) unit ■ AIEAl t::STATE TAX PA VAllU.IE MAl(E CHECKS PA YABLE TO: 1913 H ENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION MANAGER GOVERNMENT CENTER FINANCE DIVISION HENNf PIN COUNTY r.lltiNEAPOLIS , MINNESOTA 55487 Offi ce Hours -8 to 5 -Monday -Friday Phone 348 -3011 OWN ER OR MTGE SCHOOL ASS ESSED NAME CODE DISTRICT PLA T PARCEL DISTRICT WATER SHED RICHARD J LGRGE ETAL 38 41540 4 000 27 7 3 TAXPAYER OR AGEN T RICHARD J LCRGE 2697 CASCO POINT ~OAO WAYZATA MINN 55391 ESTIMATED MARKET VA LUE 5 YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A REFUND _ To f ind out if you a re ent it led to a refund of part of your proper ty t axes from the state of Minnesota see the information on th e back of this form. USE TH ESE AMOUNTS w h en you fill out your Property Ta x Re f und Form M-1 PR: 1 . QUALIFYING T AX AMOUNT L. · d d 11 · d fl..1583 .34 1m1t e to we 1ng a n one acre o aui o1 n,ng land (120 acres if farm) 2 . STATE PAID HOME STEAD CRED IT 325 .. 00 If this box is checked , you owe delinqu en t tax es a n d m ay no t app l y for the Property Tax Refund un t il su c h delinqu e n c ies are paid. N AME OF AD D ITION RANGE ASS E SSED VAL UATION 3 4 5 6 7 GROSS TAX DISTRIBUTION STATE CO UNT Y MUN I C I PALITY SCHOO L DISTRiCT OTHER TAXING DI S T RICTS 8 TOTAL GROSS TAX 9 REDUCT ION S State Pa id Agr i c ultur al Aid Cre dit State Paid H o mest ead Credit If you r ta x is less th a n $10.00, it must be paid in fu ll by 10 TO TAL GENERAL TAX ACP.ES .00 467.97 202.02 863.60 49.75 325.00 1,258.34 May 3 1st. If your ta x is $1 0 .00 or more it may be paid t===============I=========== in full or th e first h a lf o f the amount m ay be paid by 11 May 31 st and the seco nd half may be pa id b y October 31 st . Late payment wi ll result in a penalty . SPEC I A L ASSE SSMENTS Princip;,I In terest If the words "e t a l" appear a ft er the ow n er o r asse ssed 12 TOT AL AMOUNT name, th is m ea ns that t wo or more persons own an interes t in the pro pe rt y. PAYABLE PLEASE READ REVE RSE SIDE OF THIS STATEMENT 4.96 1,203.30 UAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: 1918 HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION MANAGER GOVERNMENT CENTER FINANCE DIVISION HENNEPIN COUNTV Offi ce Hours -8 to 5 -Monday -Frid ay Ph one 348 -3 011 OW NER OR MINNEAPOL IS, MINNESOTA 554S7 MTGE SCHOOL ASSESSED NA ME CO DE D ISTRICT PLAT PARCE L DISTRICT WATER SHED RICHARD J lCkCE ETAL 38 41540 300 0 277 3 TAXPAYER OR AG ENT RICHARD J LCRGE 2697 CASCO FOINT RO WA Y Z A TA M 1' 5 5 3 9 1 NAME O F AD D ITION ESTIMATED LI M IT ED ASSESSE D RANGE ACRES _M_A_R_K_E_T_v_A_L_u_E ___ _,,2~L ....... ,_.._....._...._...._M_A_R_1-<_E._-T_v_A_L_u_E ____ l h . .L..!oLJJ'----'-v_A_L_U_A_-_ri-'o_N ______ ...u.~~_,__ YOU MAY BE ENT ITLED TO A REFUND To find out if yo u are entitl ed to a r efund of part of your property tax es from t he state of Minn eso t a see the inform at ion o n the ba ck of this form . USE THESE .~l\,1 OUN TS when yo u fill o ut yo u r Property Ta x Refu n d Form M -1 PR : 1. QUALIFYING TAX AMOUNT Limit ed t o dwellin g and one ac r e of adjoining l and (120 ac res if fa rm) 2 . STATE PAID HOME STEAD CREDI T If this b ox is checked, you owe de li n q u e n t taxes a nd may n ot apply fo r the Prop e rty T ax Refund un t il su c 11 de linqu en cies are paid . 3 4 5 G ll G R OSS TAX DISTR I BUTION STA TE CO UNT Y MUNICIPALITY SC HOOL DISTR I CT OTH ER TAX ING DI S TRICTS TOTAL G ROSS TAX 9 REDUCT I ONS Sta t e Pa id Ag ricultural Aid Credi t St J te P:iid Homestead Cred it If your ta x is l ess than $10.00, it must b e paid i n ful l by 10 T OTAL GENERA L T AX .00 220. 21 95.06 406.38 23.41 745.06 May 31 st. If your t ax i s $10.00 o r more it m ay be paid t=============9=========== in full or th e fir st halt o f the .:imount may be paid by 11 May 31st and t he second h al f may be paid by October ·31 st. L ate paym en t wil l result in a pena l ty. SPEC I AL ASSESSME NTS Pr i nc i pa l I nterest If the w o rd s "et al" appea r afte r the owne r or as sesse d 1 2 TOT AL AMOUNT name, this me an s that two or more pe rso ns own an intere st in th e property. PAYABLE PLEA SE READ REVERSE SIDE OF THIS STATEMENT # 745.06 r--. l <] ST HALF ~ @71 ~ LJ PAY STUB LJ ~ (ff DETACH AND MAIL THIS STUB WITH YOUR PAYMENT TO : ,-. ,-. "' ... ... <') ► C( :ii: w a: 0 LL. w Ill a: 0 z 0 ► C( 0. ► I­_, C( z w 0. C 0 > C( .0 I- FINANCE DIVISION MANAGER HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487 MGT ::i CO DE 099 TAXPAYER OR AGENT 99005 100 1375 LO RGE R ICHf:,P C J 2697 CASCC P OINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 DISTR ICT PLAT PARCEL 38 41 54 0 4000 /4:/4 HMST FIRST HALF AMOUNT 656.77 FULL AMOUNT 1,313 .. 54 Change ONLY If Name and Addr ess are incorrect PLEASE PRINT Z ip Cod e ~ ~ ST HALF PAY STUB ~®11 DETACH AND MAIL THIS STUB WITH YOUR PAYMENT TO: FINANCE DIVISION MANAGER HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487 MGT. C O D E OS9 TA XPAYER OR AGENT 99005 .1001 375 LO R GE R.ICHI\R D J 2697 C ASC O POI NT RD WA YZ A H , Mt j 55391 DI STR ICT PLAT PARCEL 38 4154 0 3000 (;;I J ,-. ,-. "' ... .: <') ► C( :ii: FIRST HALF AMOUNT 337.99 w a: 0 LL. w FULL AMOUNT 6 75 0 98 Ill a: 0 z 0 >- C( 0. ► I-..., C( z w 0. C 0 > Change ONLY if Name and Addr~ss a re i ncorrec t C( 0 I- PLEASE PRINT Z i p Code ~ ..... l "J ,tici­ Jevel- the vague­ of privacy, rta.sonably ion of elec­ 'rice violat- 1stitutional ~-S 322, 95 from t.he :,d without s intrusive yed by the .hs v,ithout ' assaultive "inE:ment t0 rcums:..ance ,;as a sub­ and which k. He fol­ , plaintiff's creat­ ;ures were .reatment.s, contravene In short, that time, oper. I impact of lment is so .ases where ted by com­ would have ·tempted to .nstnutionaJ )nable lines )nformance izing treat­ )rotects the ,ility in the )Urse, insti­ ith the new 1ion for au-­ therapy, e. r to remain ort liability. ~,&>11 I DEDERING 'f. JOK.""ISON Minn. 913 i Cit£ BS 239 N.W.1.d Ill! the patient or guardian refuse their con­ sent, t0 leave the imposition of the more intrusive forms of treatment solely within the discretion of medical persc,nnel at our sLat..e hospitals. For that reason, we adopt the following procedure for future c.a..=..s: (1) If the patient is incompetent t0 give consent or refuSes consent or his guardian o·,her than persons responsible for his com­ mi,men1. also refuses his conSent, before more intrusive fonns of treatment may be utilired, the medical director of the state hospiLa.1 must petition the probate division of the count} court in the county in which the hospit.al is lc,cated for an order a\1thoriz.. ing the prescribed treatment; H (2) the court shall appoint a gm,rdian ad lit.em to represent the interests of the pa­ tient; 11 (3) in an adversary proceeding, pursuant to. ihe petition, the court shall determine the necessity and reasonableness of the pre­ scribed treatment. [17] In making that dete,mination the court should balirnce the patient's need for treatment against the intrusiveness of t.he pres-cribed treatment. Fa.ct.ors which should be considered are (1) the e:x"tent and duration of changes in behavior patterns and mental activity effected by the treat­ ment, (2) the risks of advel"S€ sidE effects, (3) the experimental nature of the treat­ ment, (4) its acceptance by the medic.al com­ munity of this state, (5) the extent of intru­ sion into the patient's body and the pain connected ·with the treatment, and (6) the patient's ability t0 competently determine for himself whether the treatment is desira­ ble.u 10. It is recommended, for purposes of econ­ omy, that the necessity and reasonableness of more intrusive forms of treatment be con­ sidered at the commitment hearing. TIJ..is would, of course, depend on a sufficiently extensive diagnosis and history of the pa­ tient's disorder, and should not become merely a matter of form. Also, for econo­ my, if the committing court is reasonably convenient to the state hospital, it would be desirable to return to it since it would be already familiar v.ith the case, having previ- We cannot draw a clear line between the more int.rnsive forms of treatment. requir­ ing this prC>Ce<lural hea.ring and those which do not. Cert.a.inly this prc>Ck<lure is not in­ t.ended to apply to the use of mild tranquil­ i.z.ers or those therapies requiring the coop­ eration of the patient. On the other han<l., given current mE:-dical practic.e, this proce­ durE must be followed where psychosurgery or elect.r-osbock therapy is proposed. Affinned. In re Application of Michael DEDERING for a Permit for a Single family Dwell­ ing on Lot 12, E<lgewood Shores, Isanti County, Minnesota, Appellant, v. Margaret R.. JOH:'\SO~, Respondent. Ko. 45739. Owner of substandard shoreline lot ap­ ~led from a resolution of . the county boaNLQ~ de~yi~g jpp__!ic.ati~n for variance and conditional use _permit to ~construction of si~gle-f amily_d;,_;~Iling --------------------- ~_p_Jot. The District Court, Isanti County, Tb.o~as G. Forsberg, J., entered judgment ously appointed a guardian ad litem for the patient. 11. Those considered for appointment as guardian ad litem should not include those responsible for the patient's commitment. 12. Note, 45 So.Cal.L.Rev. 616, 658; Note, Developments in the Law-<:ivil Commit­ ment of the Mentally Ill, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1190, 1347; Kaimowir.z v. Michigan Dept. of Mental Health (summarized in 42 U.S.L.W. 2063, July 31, 1973). ' /;l ,j cJ ';1 ~, 914 Minn. 239 ;,.'ORTH ·wESTER~ REPORTER, 2d SERIES dismissing the appeal and an appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Scott, J., held that the finding that proposed sewage dis­ posal syscem would not comply in all re­ spects with state and county requirements was not clearly erroneous and that the deni­ al of \'ariance and conditional use permit to owner of lot, which was not in separate ownership at time of adoption of zoning ordinanet with grandfather clause, was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. Affirmed. 1. Zoning @=235 Purpose of exemption clause of zoning ordinance is to protect pe:rsons who acquire property prior to adoption of zoning ordi­ nance from being dE:prived of value of their property. 2. Zoning es:=321 Yi'here owntt of noneetnf9~de­ v.e]oped lot.-alsLQ\I.·m __ ;,.djaeenLJinden,loped property owner must eombin_g___J,.h5'__Lwo un­ develo£s:d lots. 3. Zoning @=378 Failure to specific.ally set forth in ~andfather clause of county _ _?,O_I,ing ordi­ nlJncuh.e reg_uirem_~nl QLJEparatg -~·ner­ ,ship did not preclude board of C()_!!ll'T!ission- .~froro nsing~ one basis for deniaLClf conditional use permit for su bst..andard, un­ developed lot the fact that the -i~;::·olved ~~gficifc'nLs.i.2:s;._on grou1!.!L_ that the pr-oposc,d sewage disposal s_ystem would not c.orrply ir; all respects ;,ith st.a~d county ~uire:ments and that the substanrE,.rd l;t and adjacent land, which if corr,bined would meet requirements, were not in separate ownership on date of adoption of z.c,ning or:djf_i_a__TlC.€ s.ont.ain;~g __ grandfatherclause was E:rrnneo~s and v;a.s not un­ r::,~ona_ble, arbi,rarv,or ca]}ricious. 5. Zoning ~486 County board cannot arbitrarily deny applicant a varianCE from local zoning re­ strictions. 6. Zoning ¢=646 'Where actions of c.ounty board in act­ mg on applic.ation for Yariance from local zoning restrictions are based on substantial nidenCE which it c.onsidered in analyzing proper future course in the import.ant and sensitive land use field regarding sh0reline development, court must uphold board's de­ c1s10n. Syllabus by the Court l. The trial court's finding, based upon expert testimony, that, due to the c.ornbination of coarse soil conoitions and the natural slope of the terrain placing ap­ pellant's and respondent's water-supply ,wells downslope from appellant's proposed sewage disposal system, appellant's sub­ stanrlard lot did not meet legal req ui:r::e- j ·1,··:·,··:.: ... ·". -~ndeveloped lot andfu-ad}acent lot were ments for exemption from the Isant; Coun- ·-n_9l..~~.P~.ate __ CJwn_e~shiJ) on date of ty Zoning Ordinance was not clearly errone- pdoption of zoning ordinance and that it ous where: ~asible to combine the lots and com_ply (a) the wning ordinance requires, I . with minimum requirements of county _zon-among other things, that any s1;;:ptic tank be _ing ordinance; this wa.s particularly appro-placed, as a minimum, at least 50 feet from priate where the local wning ordinance was any domestic water supply and downslope , _ adopted in fortherance of state andcounty from that supply where feasible; and f low density shoreline development policy. J ,.,---_,:.._--------..::___ ---(b) said ordinance also requires that I m.S.A. § lOS.4SS, subd. l. when coarse formations are encountered j; 4. Zoning ~610 the distance specified shall be increased ap- I j t i i Denial of conditional use ~rrnit and propriately; and Ii< i t.·-· . . varjanc.e to shoreline lot owner, who ac-(c) appellant's propDsed septic tank willl' ;; q_uired substandard Jal with full knowledge be 60 feet from respondent's well and 50 I , ~ .,_ ,;: :;:~ m~ -~~Ee I ........_ __ · ----~':' _-.··-·~~--· __ _..:._:: .. ,.r··~'-'·._'.-'--~ DEDERING v. JOH:\'SON :Minn. 915 Che as 239 :\ W.1.d 913 foet frc,m his own well, and ups]c,pe from both wells. 2. In denying "a conditic,nal-use permit\ and variance to appellant, who acquired a ( sub:1:3ndar? 101 v.-ith ful_l knowle~i'ge of its/ dccf1c1ent siie, the Isanti County B0a.rd of , Cornmissione~ was furthering the purp-Jse I of the shorclands pro\·isiom of the county's · zoning ordinance and the sJ-,orelands policy of the state of ;\finnesota. The trial court properly found unreasonable, where: the board's ;;,ction was not o.rLitrary, or c.;;_pricious ,,..- order of the Is.s.nti County District Court. He had app0a]ed t.o the dis',rict eourt from a resolution of the Isanti County Board of Commissioners made on January 8, 1974, which denied his application for a variance and a conditional-use permit to allow con­ struction of a single-family dv;e]Eng upon Lot 12, F.,dgewoocl Shores. The district court then entered judgment dismissing ap­ plic.ant's appeal. ;.ilzQf}13.n..t__is_tb~--owner of Lot 12, Edge­ wood Shores, in Isanti County, ;1.finnesota. Lot 12 is located in an area zoned S-1, (a) such denial was based upon sub-h 1 d s ore.an s district, and fronts on Paul's stantial e,:idence; and •---Lake. Paul's Lake is classified as a recrea- (b) appellant's pre:d0c.essor in title tion development lake by an Isanti County owned adjacent property which could have zoning ordinance adc,pted May JO, 1971. been combined wit!-, the subject property to · Lot 12 was found by the trial court to be meet zoning requirement~. Parker & Olsen and Lawrence E. Olsen, ---approximately 85 feet in width across its shoreline dimension, 396 fC£t in length on its easterly dimension, 74 feet in width on its southerly dimension, and 364 feet in its westtrly dimension. The lot contains 35,- 000 square feet. J3ntil June 1973, Lots 12, 13, and 14 were owned bv Leroy Roll, app_el­ lant's father-in-law, who platted the lot.s.Jn I;farch 1956. 1n June 1973, Lot 14 was ~ Cam bridge, for appellant. Jorsey, Marquart, Winrlhorst, \\'est & .,d.J1aday and \\"illiam J. Hempel and Den­ nis Buratti, \Lnneapolis, for respondent Johnson. John F Dablow, County Atty., Cam­ briilge, for respondent county. conveyed to William Roll, Leroy's son, and Heard b€fore PETERSOK, TODD and SCOTT, JJ ., and consiilered and decided by the court en bane. SCOTT, Justice. This is an appeal by Mic)iael Dedering from a judgment entered pursuant t.o an Lot 12 to his son-in-law Michael Dedering. Leroy Roll still owns Lot 13 and the unplat­ ted land to the east. Respondent Margaret R. Johnson is the owner of Lots 9, 10, and 11 of Edgewood Shores, which she occupies as a year-round residence. Her home, ac­ quired with her purchase, is on Lots 10 and 11. Lot 12 slopes toward Lot 11. /ft \ [ ,] :--.:""--.,.,_~ -, .-. 916 Minn. 239 1'.'0RTH 'WESTER!\ REPORTER, 2d SERIES lo.anti County Zoning Oroinance, § 7, subd. 5(6)(b) and (7}(b), requires for a one­ family dwelling on a recreation develop­ ment lake a minimum lot area of J acre (43,560 sq. ft.) and minimum lot width of 150 feet. V,'hen it was conveved to him. appellant a;d his predecessor in ti~; knew that his lot did not meet these require­ ments. The "grandfather clause'~Jhat ordinance, €, J7 rnhd lO,~ow., lots platted before Mav 9, 1969.1Q__h.c,.......d.e.i.:.lo,Ped as long a,: certain conditions were met. One of those conditions' is that- " . .. • state and local statutes, or- dinances, rules and regulations relating to sewer and water svst.ems shall be com­ plied with in all respects • • • " The Isanti County Board of Adjustment issued a building permit to appellant on l. Isanti Count Zoning Ordinance, § l 6, subd. 4: "No conditional use shall be recom- mended by the County Planning Commis­ sion unless said Commission shall find: "l. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantial­ ly diminish and impair property values with­ in the immediate vicinity. "2. That the establishment of the condi­ tional use will not impede the normal and orderly development· ·and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses pre­ dominant in the area. 7J I 73 J .;;: I 7\ I 7, I I I I :;;I t;I _o ► ~, ~; I Sept.ember 4, 19J3. \fargaret .Johnson ap­ pealed to the Isanti County Board of Com­ missi0ners and also obtained a temporar_y restraining order in district court t.o prnent appellant's eonstrnction. The l;,.anti County Planning Commission rE:commended thE: ap­ proYal of a conditional-use pE:rmit on Octo­ ber 16, 1973. Isanti County Zoning Ordi­ nance, § 16, subd. 4.1 9n January 8, 1974, the Isanti County Board of Commissioners denied appellant's application for a co__ndi­ tional-use permit and a Variance. The county board found that appellant's prir posed use would be lDJUrlOUS to pro2erty values in the immediate vicinity and would no_!:_ comply with sewage disposal s~utes. r~_gulations, and ,ordinances. ~ __ board further concluded that property owners of "3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. "4. That adequate measures haYe been or will be taken to provide sufficient off­ street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. "5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offen­ sive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nui­ sance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neigh boring properties will result." I j ; I t . -~ .. ..;- DEDERI\IG '-JOH~SON Minn. 917 Cile c..S 239 1'.W.1.d 913 uhs,.anrL,rd lots are not entitled under • to the ·:rni..omcitir issuance of pcrrnit.s nc·ceosary to build upon any lot of rc,cord filed in the office of the Register of Dec,cls on or before May 9, 1969, when such ownccr,hip at the time of adoption of (1) \"Vas the trial cDurt's finding that ap­ pellant's pror,:ised sewa.ge disposal system would not comply in all re5pt:Ct.s w-ith state and county requi;onent.s clearly er;oneous? (2rv:as the trial court correct in holding that the Is3.nti County Board of Commis­ sioners was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or the Isanti County Zoning ordinance was capricious in r-efusing tD g-;-2.nt apr,ellant in common with ownership of abutting exemption under Isanti 0::,unty u)ning Or- prope_rty m;,\;ing it phy,ic.ally fe2..sible ·W0in°-.ce, .§ 17, subd. 10? c.ombme such sq,ilrate lots of record 1or 1 , ll t ..... th + h. d . .,;.p;:>e an a.ssei cS a, is propose purposes of issuanc.e of permits to [bui] d' 1 tn 1· · h • . . sewage isp-osa. sysvc:rT, comp ies v.1t stac.e onh' one single familv dwellrng ur;Qn d , . , . --· an county statutes, regu1a1.1ons, ana ordi- mo re ·han one such ser,arate lot of · ' • -t nances. Lot 12 currenth· is not sened by any publicsev;erorwaf.e; foCilmes. P.ppei­ lant's proposed septic tank will be approxi­ mately 60 feet from respondent Johnson's well and 50 feet from his own well. Appel­ lant admits that Isanti County Zoning Ordi­ nance, § 15, subd. 3(1){c)(l) and (l}(c){S), requires that any septic tank be pla.c.ed at least 50 feet from any domestic water sup­ ply and downslope from that supply where court found that quires that state and $'ta Lutes, § 17, subd. 10, re­ loc.al sewer-and ordinances, and r;;Jes and regulations, including thE: general requirements found in the Isanti County 7,0r,ing Ordimrnc:e, must be eomplied with in all respects.2 It also found that an ade­ quat.c: silnitary sewer facility could not be built on Lot 12. T'he rli,1.rict court concluded that the ~0unty b,:,ard's drnial of Dedering's applica­ tion ·;,·?..s not arbitrary or capricious as a matt.er of law, that the board's findings were w;-,rranted, ;-,nd that appellant was not entitled to a cc,nditionill-use permit. The issues prc,ent.ed are: 2. Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, § 17, subd. JO: "'.'-;otwithstanding any other pro• vision of this Ordinance, a one-family de· tached dwelling may be built upon any lot which was of record by deed or plat filed in the office of the Reeister of Deeds on or before May 9, 1969, a;d no dwel]jng existing on said date shall be deemed a non-conform­ ing use by reason of its location on a lot which does not meet the requirements of this Ordinance ·with respect to lot size, di• mensions, or setbacks, pro,ided, however, that, in any event, the side yard and setback requirements of this Ordinance shall be met as· nearly as may be, as approved by the Board of Adjustment and provided further that state and local statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations relating to sewer and water systems shall be complied with in all respects, and further pro,'ided that any plat­ ted lot ha,·ing less than 10,000 square feet shall be a non-conforming use hereunder." ,•.:-- feasible. The minimum ordinance require- ment.s are greatE:r where coarse soil forma­ tion is present.3 Appellant argues that he can install a soil-absorption unit and that this unit should be regarded as adequate despite the presence of coarse soil bec.ause it is not feasible W place the septic tank downslope from the water-supply well in this case. 3. lsanti County Zoning Orc;linance, § 15, subd. 3(1)(c)(]O): "(JO) Location of the soil absorption system shall be an unobstructed and preferably unshaded area, and the dis­ tances given below shall be the minimum separation between the disposal field and the following: "(a) Any water supply well, or buried water suction pipe 50 feet "(b) Streams or other bodies of water 150 feet "(c) Occupied buildings 20 feet "(d) Large trees 20 feet "(e) Property lines of buried pipe distrib­ uting water pressure l O feet "(f) Other soil absorption systems 3 times the diameter of largest pit (edge to edge). "\Vhen coarse soil formations are encoun­ tered, the distance specified in items (a) and (b) shall be increased appropriate!}•.'' ,·-·--._.._ .· .:, --- --..,- ·;v-_•"" 918 Minn. 239 :\'ORTH WESTER?\ REPORTER, 2d SERIES ny, found that c~pJJ-eilantts p]ac.errient of fi11 v:ou1d not aGequate]y me-et the C1rdinance requirement. The trial court conciuded that due t.c, the eomtination of C{)arse soil c0ndjtjon~ prestnt 1 01e fa-ct that thE na:.ura} slope of (he "Js:ria]n p!accd John­ :<on's wate:r-supply well and Paul's Lake do·v:nslope from apprllani.'E ;,ropcsed sew­ age d)5posa1 systern, and thE: unkno\~·n sub­ surface geologic cc,ndi1.ions in the Yicinity, there v:2-5 sufficient basis for the de,.ermi­ nation of tbE-lsanti County Board of Com­ missjc1ncrs that th2 proposed SE\\·2.gc djspos­ al syste;r; was ir.adequate. Appells.nt ques­ tic,ns this finding, but the board, in denying appellant's application for a conditional-use permit s.nd .-ariance, coupled this inadequa­ cy in apr>€llant's prc,posed sewer syst.em with the fact tha·l the lot in\·oh·ed and adjacent land v;ere not in separat.E owner­ ship on thEc date of adoption of the zoning ordinance. The board noted that it was feasible to combine Lot 12 with adjac.ent land owned by Leroy Roll and thereby com­ ply with thEc minimum width requirements of Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, § ?, subd. 5(7}(b). [l-3] 2. ...~Llh.a.u.h.e.. re­ g u ire men t o: ,:eparat.e ov;nership i~ spe­ cifically set forth in the ordinance and, therefore, cannot be a.__c.o.n.dif..ill.IL.QU.bLex­ emption clause, § 17, subd. 10. This argu­ ment is unpersuasive. The purpose of ex­ e~lauses in a zoning ordinanc.e is to p~ot.ect persons who acquire property prior to the ado tion of the zoning ordinance from bei)1g_Qfil)_riy~g_ of the value of their ~~.!:!}'.:-1_ Ra thkopf_, Th~ L~T-~ng ~rid Planning_(3 ed. 197.i}__J)__,__Q_'.2-l~e the owner of a nonconforming unde\·eloped 4. Minn.St. 105.485, subd. 1: "" "' ,. [I]t is in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to pro\ide guidance for the wise development of shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, preserve the economic and natural em-ironmental values of shore­ lands, and provide for the wise utilization of water and related land resources of the state." 2 ' -, ' -, . _';. noe_::,-sor~.:.,.-~~miSn- can Law of Zc,_ning_ (1968) J 8.i_9, p:-56. is pcirticularly ar,propj;::_~_ as her~:th~-loc.a)_zon}ng_c,rdinance is adopted in of St.3te a-~a··--;~·~·;t\:--~W- --~~: Q l c, :i m,:,.iiL-~ l icy, Minri.St 105.~.5, suhd. 1.4 --- Ai"cl·,oug}, there is no \finnesota case on the question of sep:c.rate ownership as. a prerequisite for 2. zc,r1ing exE-mption, c simi­ lar fact situation v;-a, presented in Mac1::hia ,·. Board of Appeals, 7 Misc.2d 763, 16.; N.Y.S.2d 463 (1957), in which a petitioner was denied permission to erect a one-family residr:nce because the lot failed to meet minimum area and front, rear. and side yard requirements. "The fact that the building of s. resi­ denc.e upon 2. substandard lot might de­ preciat.e the \'a]ue of neighboring proper­ ties is no ground for den)ing a building permit if the property ha.s been cominu­ ously in single and separate o,rnership for a period commencing prior to the adoption or amendment of a Z(lning ordi­ nance making it sub-standard. • • • "The petitioner's difficulty, in this in­ stanc.e, however, is that she has failed to allege that the subject property has been at all times in single and separat.e ov;ner­ ship, in other words, that neither she nor her predecessors in title since the adoption of the zoning ordinance have owned adjacent property which, com­ bined with the subject parcel, c.ould have formed a single lot conforming to the minimum are.a requirements." 7 Misc.2d 766, 164 N.Y.S.2d 466. Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, § i, subd. 1: "The intent of the SHORELA.ND DISTRICT is to guide the v.;se development and utilization of shorelands of public waters for the preservation of water quality, natural characteristics, economic values, and the general health, safety and welfare of all public waters in the unincorporated are­ as of the County." na ra· ev, gu Ca tbt sor COL me reg c.crc Ap for spe tor: age [ L mit a SU defi Con of ti z.oni of ti cam anCE Zyl].; N.W here base, sider coun use j decis V. Cl :N.W. corre Af: -;...,· -,. -,.;, ,_ -;-.---'"':'." '~--: .... ,. ...__ ~ .,_,· -_,._-. -✓ --' -' .:c._·_:c_ . .:...:.:c; .. __ ~--~ ·--' _,,~--~~· =·. -·-~-• ·--· ... ;:.;::~"'-"··~:-. _.:.:' -~ .­•cc_:.~,.,=..::.;;.:::.c:;.;_--'--=·~.c.~-· ZA.KRAJSHEK v. SHllSTER }riinn. 919 Ap;:,r:lla1;t s~~culates that the wning ordi­ nsnce in Macchia may havE: required sepa­ rat.E: ownership. ThE Jl£icchia e:.ourt, how­ ever, reitrs to no Sf>ecific statutory lan­ guagE for its si,,glE:-c,v:nership requirement. C2.Ses j1; other jurisdictic,m have found that the fa-ct that en applicant or his predeces-­ sors in title ov::n adjacent pro;J.f:rts -~-h)ch could be cc,mbined to meet a u,ning require­ ment is a legitimate factor in a decision regarding the issuance of variances. _!he u,urt in Lessner v. Zc,ning Bo~ of ---···~•"'-"7' ___ 1cc ·1-9• A?~q:;-('01':") _fipp-ea!s 1 Jol 1._-0nn . .i..vJ} -~-~_;.±:Q_~_{_.:..,,v-:i, --------~~ ,.~ --:;---~-:;---~~-~-,.., . ; ~ ""', 1, t . for exan-1pJE, 1ounG _Ln.a\ a L_l.::1~~-n_g_I~,s_u,a.Jon specif:,1;g·-~20-;oot front.age was co~sc.a­ U:n·;_,_-here the o·,;;ner of a lQO-fc,>2\ front­ ag; c.ould~~ Zbc-2.i; additional footage. ---- [4-6] In de:Jyir,g a conditional-ese per­ mit and \'2.r:ancE t0 appellant, whc acquired a substandard lot with full knowledge of its deficient size, the Isanti County Board of Commissioners wac-furthering the purpose of the shoreh,nds pro';i,iom 0 1 that county's wning ordinance and thE shorelands policy of the st.at.e of :.~innesota. A c.ounty board cannot arbitrarily deny an applicant a vari­ anc.e from Joe.al wning restrictions. See, Zdka v. Cin-of Crysuil, 283 Minn 192, 16i }:_V.'.2d 4-5 • (1969). }fowever, where, as here, the actions of the cou_11ty boa-rd are bas~d-o;;-;ubs;_:;;-=cia.l e,1dence wnich it con­ sidered in analyzing the . prop,er future c.ourse ·i~ tJ:iis.imp.or_g,ntand sensitive land­ use fo;ld, a_i:_ci_u..i:!._mu~t")!pnold the board's decision. See, Areadia Development Corp. L City of Bloomington. 267 Minn. 221, 125 K .W .2d 846 (1964). The trial court was correct. Affirmed. J. v. Tom SHUSTER, Employen Insura.nee of Insurer, R.elator, St.ate Tre;;surer, Cusiodian of the Sp-eeial Comp-ensation Fund, &Epondent. No. 45170. S1;preme Court of Minnesota. March 5, 1976. W'orkmen's eomp-2nsation insurer o~ tained Ckrtiorari to re,1ev. refusal of Workmen's C,ompen5a·,ion Board t.c approve settkmrnt of parties to claim for compens.a­ tion. The Supreme Court, Peterson, J., held that statute proYiding that workmen's c.om­ v=:nsation insurance may not he cancelled until notice is filed with Department of L;;,:xir and Industry required that c.aneella­ tion of policy not become effective until 30 davs after such filing; and that new policy did not relate back to and bec.ome effective as of dat., of canccl]ation of first policy, and did not pro.-ide co,·erage for injury sus­ tained b_y employee sub$equent to c.ancella­ tion of first policy and prior to eff ect.ive date of new policy. Reversed and remanded with di­ rections. 1. Workmen's Compensation ~ 1069 Where· workmen's c.ompensation insur­ er filed with Department of Labor and In­ dustry notice that it was cancelling work­ men's comp,ensation policy, cancellation to be effective less than 30 days following date of filing with Department, statute pro­ viding that such insurance may not be can­ celled until such notice is filed with Depart­ ment required that eancdlation of such pol­ icy not become effective until 30 days after filing. M.S.A. § 176.185, subd. 1. \ ~ • ,,,,J ,1 •j Chapter 32. LOTS SUBSTANDAHO IN AHEA OH FHONTACE § 32.01 § :12.02 § no:1 § 32.0J § 32.05 § :12.0(l § :)2.07 § 32.08 ii :l2.0ll § :12.01 SYNOl'SlS l11troduclion Uncon,lilulional Application of Area Hegulatious Exernptiou Provisions in Ordiuauecs Su list an I ial l\clatio11sliip to Purpo,es of the Police Power Duetrine of Single, Separate Ownership Where Only O11e Loi Vacant Variations 011 the Theme of Single and Separate Owner,hip 11] Checkerhoarding 12] Baek to Back or "L" Shaped Lots ()rdinancc Provisions as to l\'1crger or !\Janner of Subdivision Title Through Ta, Foreclo,ure l\elicf Through Crnnl of Variance 11] Opportunity to Sell or lo Purchase Additional Laod 1.2] Clrnradcr of Neighborhood [a] The Doclrine of Fulli11g v. Palumbo [:JJ Effect of Self Created Hardship I utroduction Prnvisium ill zoning ordinances establishing wi11irnum lot sizes and mi1d111tm1 width or "frnnL1ge" of lots upon wliich a dwelling rnay b;, erected have gc11crally hccn upheld as a means of regu­ lati11g tl1e dernily of pop11laliu11 a11d of assuring a sullkient qua,11- tily of light a11d air to the inhabita11ts of the dwellings placed thereon. 1 J t-.fon1s v. City of Los Angdt·~, 2S·l P.2d U35 ( Cal. 1H5:J ); Clewens v. City of Los A11;\ckv, 3b Cat. App. 2d V5, 22.2. P.2.J 4:J\J ( J950), De Salle v. Cigg,11, 261 P.2d ,J0D (Colo. IU.13); (:olhy \'. llo,lrd of Adjustment, 81 Colo. :31it, 255 P. •M3 ( HlS:l ); Jl1nvl.u1d v. Aeling Supenntt·11dcut, 102 N.E.2d 423 ( lvla~s. HJ51 ); Citliu v. llu11kdg,·, 12:J N.Y.S.2d ~12 ( W5:l); Adc1hold v. Aderhold, 250 P.2d 3U (Okla, 10.52); \Vuods v. Kie1'>kY, J.J S.\V.2d 825 (Tl'x. Hl2.5); l-fa1111no11<l v. Town of C:,ddwell, 282 ,\pp. Jliv. 7!J8, 122 N.Y.S.2d •tllO ( HJS:J); Schmidt v. 1'.kKec, 2@ N.Y. :J?J, ll1!i N.E. Hli!J ( lUJ:J); Euri11g v. llcalhcute, 83 N.W.2d 250 ( l\t1ch. 1057 ). Tlie te1rn ":adistamlurd lot" is med hc1cin with re~pccl to a 32-1 ---~ :3,,_,> Till£ LA\V CW ZONING AND l,LANNJNC 9 '.l2.01 :\linirn111J1 lul size specili1.·alions are ti.to n1<:c111s 111ost ufte11 relied upuu tu crnllrul tlie deJ1sity of pupulalipn within the cu1111111111ily, si1iL·e th" 14real,-·r the arnou11l ol Lwrl which nu1st be devoted lo eacl1 ,.,i11gle family del ached dwelling, Ll,e fl'.IVt:r sucli dwellings can be co11slrnl'!ed within the ('011ll111111ity. 111 addition lo c"11trnl­ li11g densily of pop1ilalion, speeilicalio11 of a 111i11irn1m1 lot area is considered lo prumok the general welL,re i11 I hat it Lt:nds lo ere:lle ,1 1J11i!urrnily ol lot ,ize i11 a given dislricl, avuiding the in­ eursio11 of narrow or 11ndersized lots which are ill(:onsisle11I willi existing developiuent and which would res11ll in the erection of inl1armo11iously sized slr11dures therein. It was cmrn11only thu11glit tlial tlie values i11hcrent in the exist­ iug develtJprnenl uf a rcsideuti,d area wuuld lie adversely affeckd by the sporadic developine11t uf smalln lots, si11c1: the charncter of a resideulial develop111e11t is dcten11i11,·d by size of l10,1se as well as l,y size of lut. 2 111 additio11 lo the ecowimic, aestlietic, alld compalability as­ pects of lots of fairly Ulliforni size, i11 areas wit hu11t p11l,lic wale1· supply, public sewc1ge disposal, and storm drainage, a multipli­ city of s111:dl h0111es tJII srn,tll lots, each with its private water Slip­ ply a11d private sewage dispus,1I sy,lel\l could well create health l,azards, polluting thi: gruuud waler lable.3 The crndlil't between the local legislative dcternii11ation that lots "f a llliuinHuu size, width, a11d frn1,tage .ire requiwd fur proper ac:hieveme11t of the purp,)ses set furlli ill the en.d,ling ad, all(I the pos,ible come­ quent pruliibit1011 of productive 11sc of tlie land and mJ1easonable diminution of vulue, funm ihe background of an exteusive are,i of legi,;latiou a111.l litigaliun. A. 1-eq11ire11w11t tl,at a lot have a specified width at the L11ildi11g Jin,, is for ihe purpose of pri,venli11g, as far as possil,ll', the crea­ tion of irregular, oddly shaped lots, and to assure tl1t· provision of sutrlcie11t side yards l,clwecll the slruclun: lhal might be erL,ci,,d on tl1t, lot and th,, lut lilll;, lo pruvide a rcaso11abll' distanee be- p.1.rcd wliich i5 ddicit-111 111 e1tlw1 width u1 .uc<t Ill 1d,llio11 lo lho wi11i1rn1111 \\'idtli or arc,1 req1n1e1nc11I~. ol the ord111i111te. 2 St.:e Ch. :H infra, J SubdiVI.\IUn nde.'> .111d n·guLltllllb, h,nvn,cr, ,1,:; well ,I.\ .\late lw,dth Jcpart1ue11l requi1J:11u:11b 111,tl tl1c d1·\1"!111ier lHU\'1d1· p1il>lic ,v,11t:r ;wd .\t·w.1ge ln!ctllltt'llt f.ldli­ lies in ..1lllidiv1,i1111:, exceeding .i :,pcl'ili,·d 11111ube1 of dwclh11g:-i, rc11dc1 tl1t:: liitk1 reason.\ It·'>.'> wi:1ghty tl1a11 tlil')' we1L' ht:1ct()/u1e, 'v~: I 9 :12.01 SUBSTANDARD LOTS 32-3 twee11 two houses on adjacent lots, to confer privacy and space fur recreation as well, and to permit access of light and air to all sides of the struetures. Tl,e frontage provision, that is, the rec1uirerncnt that a build­ able Jut have a speeified width at the street line of the lot is for the purpose of preventing "pothan<lle" lols,4 that is, to prevent a lot l,eliind another lot, the latter having a frontage on the street, the funner securing access by means of a right-of-way aeross part of the front lot. 1>:ven the initial zoning ordinances iu many communities, in establishing a minimum size and width of lots in the various scclio11s thereof, found existing lots which did not meet the speci­ fications. In many communities, lands had been platted into lots on old filed maps, often in lots having an area of 2,000 square feet wit!, a width at the street line of twenty feet. Sales of these or of 11rnltiples of such lots, resulted in many lots in "single sepa­ rate ownership,''• not meeting even the lenient requirements as tu lul size and width of the early zoning ordinances. These early ordinances re,1uired comparatively small lots for eacl1 residence. The history of land regulation, however, is a tale of those living in and coutrolliug municipalities at any given time, attempting to limit the number of persons who might follow them there by in1.:reasing the size of lots required for residential use, The advantages suught were not only to control the density of pop11lalion, thus stablizing the need fur additional public facilities a1nl schools, but also, hy requiring larger size lots in a district wit Ii ,1 cmmneusurate requirement of a larger minimum habitable area i11 eaeh dwelling, to assure that huger and proportionately mure expensive houses would be built, thus improving the char­ ader of the distriet and the values of the existing dwellings therein. Lots wliich could nut conform to the standards set by die more restrictive requirements imposed as to area, frontage, width, or other physical elements, were "substandard," in the sellse of having a l~sser area, width, or frontage than the required lliillillllllll. 4 Su1m:lina:s called "Jbg lob/' the access driveway being considered to rcsc1nble 1 lie ll.1gpole.. o "Si11gle aml !lcpnrntt:" mv11cr~hip c:-.hts wlwn the lot is sepurate from nny otl1c1 hJl or prnlmn lhcrnif, ill tlie san1t:: owner!>hip, \Vith which it can be com~ biucd tu uuke a larger co11fu1111i11g Jut. :12-1 TIii:: LA\V UF ZUNINC AND l'I.ANNJNC g :J:UJ2 ~ 3:UJ:! U11comlitutiu11al Applicatio11 of Area Hcgulaliom If luts wl1ich are uf a size, width, or frn11tage tl1at cuuforrns to the rt:quire111L·11ls of ,111 urdiu.111c1• ( or wc1c v.ilid l,ecamc ,if tht: alioe111.·e of reg1da1 iu11 .it the llllle tl1eir di11,e11,i11m w1•n; eslali• ld,ed) were 1111al,li: tu l,e 11,;cd a11d th11s wer,: re11dercd vali1ele,;s liy thu provisium of .11r mdi1ia11ce ur aH1t:lld111c11t wl1ich rcq11ircd greali,r area, width, or fru11Lige 111,111 eould lie crn11plii:d with, s11ch regulatioHs 1Vllt1ld he i11valid i11 tl1t,ir applicalitltl lo s11cl1 lots. At; urdi11,u1cc wliic!t wu1dd 1,ave lite i:ffcl'l uf re11tlern1g a par• eel of property useless is 1111c·oustil11liouaL Tltis was well dest.:ribed liy the New York cu11rt i11 Lo11t': Is/11JI(/ L1111d llesu11rcli Jluri:uu v. Yo1Jng 1 : "\Vlien a rnuuicip,d lt·gislalive l,udy divides a luwn or village iulo districts .111,I pres,:rilH,s the; 111i11i11111111 la11d di111<'nsio11s for p,,rl ictilar uses ill sucl, districls, il dues so wit It ,tl lea,I comtni,,tive 11uti,:e of tl1e e.-1skuce tla,rL:i11 of cvl'ry s11h­ sla11dard parcel l1eld i11 si11gle, scp,,ral,· uwu,·rsltip. It is 1111- der a11 ,tlisolt1te d111y to 111ake atl,·qu.ite pruvisirn1s lor sttch p,1rcels. \Vhil,; it call limit their 11,,,,, il 1.:a1111ul render them 11seless. Tn1e, ,1 line always 1·;.isls lwyo11d wlti,·lt the ereuiun of a dwelling, or place uf liu,iuess, or a11y ot l1L,r 11s1: of a sub­ standard lot may hav,, L><:co11w detri1ue11lal to il1t, general welfore, but i11 such '"'"" I lie 1u1111icipalily is lio1111tl lo eOlll· peusale t lie ()\\'!H:r ii ii pr11pu""· ill t Ii.,, public i11lc,1 esl, lo liar his property from any 1,r<1ctirnl 11se for whi,·li it might be suited. fl c·a11not t:outpel hitn lo sell lo au atlj11i11i11g owller I 15H N.Y,S.2d ·Jl·J, 7 Mbc. :!d .HJ9 ( JU57). St·t: \Valdod v. C1il!"t1y, 15U N.Y S.2d 852, 5 !\l1~e. 2.d HO ( 105? ); l\Ln·h1a v. H(1<11d uf :\ppl',d".., 7 l\f1sc. 2d ?iU, If>-! N.Y.S.:!.cl .l(fJ (!~JS?) Tl1c iulc i:, !>11.wd upon tl1<il :it.1kd 11}, !lit: lWJfl of Appc,d".. u{ New Yrnk in :\n·c11w B,1y (\1n-,t1. (\i. \'. Tl1alLl1cr, '2.7H N.Y. '2.22, :!:J2, 15 N.E.2.d 5H7, so~. 11? A.L.H. lJlO ( HKIH): .. :\11 wd!Jl,LIICC \\liid1 pt·1~· 1n,we1d]y ".,O re~l1wb the use u[ pit1pe1ty th;1t Jl l'<llllHll l)t.: 11:-.1:d Jor ,Lil}" 11·<1'>011,1ble 1rnrpoc>c g1w~, 11 i:. pl,un, beyond 1cg1d,1l1un, and 1!111.~! bv 1tT11g11i1.l'd ,l'.1 .i t.1kiug uf th~· proper!/. Tht· only ::i1dl:,Luiti:d ddl1·1t·nn·, 111 '.>H( I, L',bt:, lwtwcl"O !"t'.•,t11L'li1111 aud ,nlu.d t.d-:nig, 1) th.d Ilic 1nl1iditHI lc.1\"t:_~ th,· u\\nt·1 :i11h11·l"I lo tit,· IJu1dt'u of Jlil}J!Wllt 1d Lt.\.ili1111 while out1ii~hl cu11fo1•,1!Hl!I wrnild 1.,1·h1·\t' luni tll tli,11 b111d1 111." S,·c ,d~o ~!1,11111 S/1urv:-. \. Vdl.tgt! ,d Elli~, '.):J So. 2d J:?,-1 ( l•'l.1. UJ-l~lJ; lla111u1u11d v, To\Vll uf t.>,tldwl:ll, 12:2 N.Y.'.:i.'2d 1110, '.2..8'2 App. Di\. 7q8 ( l~J5J), l\lil1y11'> v, City uf Uv.i1Lmn, '.l·IJ /\lid1. ·IU.5, ti7 N.E.~d 7JM ( IU-Hi), Hex•,1J11 v. Hoard of Zu1Jing .,\ Appt~ab, ~B A.U2d l-Ht3, lHI N.\'.S.2d ShU ( ltW7 ), ,dl'd 21 N.\'.2d UbJ, 28U N.Y.S.:2d U!JO, 2J7 t'-l.E.~d ~! .. H) ( JUGH); lid! v. Uu.•,IJia, 1:.?.5 S.E.2d ~H (C.i. l\JIJt); ll. A. VadH)11 & Sun, Inc. v. City of Cuncord, 2BD A.;2d O•W (N.11. l~J7.;:!); L•::;.'.1h:1 v. Zoning Bd. of Appv,d:,, 1~)5 A.2d 1:.37 ( Cu1111. IU<J:3 ), ~ [ S 32.02 SUBSTANDARD LOTS 32-5 l!Or t:a11 it require hilll to purchase additioual contiguous pwpel'ly, if such is availalile. Hather, it must itself acquire the property by purchase or condellrnatiun since, in effed, it is laking it for a public purpose. Power to do so is found in oection 64, subd. 2, of the Town Law, and in sediou 89, subd. 35-a of the Village Law. "Any complete sterilization of private property by legislative Hat without mmpemation to the owner is confist:atory and violative of article l, set:. 7 (a) of the New York State Con­ stitution and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution." It was also well expressed in a New Jersey ease.2 "ft is clear that if this lul, located in a single-family residen­ tial zoue, cannot be used for construction of the proposed dwelling, it will for all pradical purposes be useless. lt is selllcd in this State, as well as in other jurisdictions, that a rnu1,icipality may not destroy the economic value of an iso­ lated lot by retroat:tively prohiliiting the erection thereon of a single-family dwelling through adoption of a zoning ordi­ mmce prescribing minimum lot size requirements unless re­ lief is ,1vailable to the owner of such undersized lot. Other­ wise, the restrietion against snch use is plainly a taking of the property without just compensation. Belief is customarily provided by au exemption in the zoning ordinance or by the availaliility of relief by a:pplication for a variance from the board of adjustmeut. It is clear on the facts of this case that, if the owner had been required by the terms of the zoning ordinance to apply for a variance, such variance could not have reasonably been denied. Griffin Construction Corp. v. Teanet:k Board of Adjustment, 85 N.J. Super. 472, 205 A.2d 313 ( App. Div. 1964), 1.:ertifkalion denied 44 N.J. 408, 209 A.2d 143 ( 1965); Ardoliuo v. Florham Park Board of Adjust­ ment, 24 N.J. 94, 130 A.2d 847 (1957); DeMoss v. Borough of Watchung, 137 N.J. L. 503, 60 A.2d 890 ( Sup. Ct. 1948); Hodee v. Lee, 14 N.J. Super. 188, 81 A.2d 517 (Law Div. 1951); Burke v. Borough of Spring Lake Board of Adjust­ ment, 52 N.J. Super. 498, 145 A.2d 790 (App. Div. 1958); > Craves v. lltooncfield Plan11111g lltl., 97 N.J. Super. 3()(J, 235 A.2d 51 ( L.D. !967 ). .,. :12-0 Tl IE LAW UF ZONING AND PL\NNINC s :J2.0:J Krysl'11,ki v. Sl11:11ki11, :):l N.J. Sup.,r. 5UIJ, 1-lb A.2<1 58 (App . Div. I\Ki!l), 1.erlili,·atio11 denied 2!J N.J •lli5, 1-1\J A.2d 85!J ( .I !JSH); ,ee !leers v. \Vay11e Tp. l.loar,l ul i\djusl 1m:11l, 71', S11pe1. :liJS, 1/l:.J 1\.2d 180 (App. IJ1v. 1%:'.); Srnitlr v. Paqui11, Tl N.J. S11p1:r. J:lK, 11,5 A.2d 67:J ( App. Div. 1.%2); /\lisl'iii,ll'a v. l'is,·ataway 'J'p. Buard ul Adjml111<:11t, Tl N.J. Supt:r. 2kl:l, llW A.2d 1-11 ( Law Div. !U(i2), see I !0l111a11 v. Jlornuglt uf No1wuud lluard uf Adp1sl111,:11l, "/H N.J. Super. '7·1, l K7 A.2d HOS ( App Lliv. ID!.i:1); I\L11:l .,·a11 v. llrick Tp. Hoard, DI N.J. 'i11ptcr. 2flll, 2:!8 A.2d b::i ( ,\pp. Uiv. .l81i7 ), see Wilson v. llowuglr ol t\!01u1l.11mide, -12 N.J. 42/i, -1.52, ~O.l A.2d -J50 ( l!:J(i-1) ."3 011 the otlr(;r l1a11LI, wl11,re a lot is s111!icic,11lly large tu permit the c,rectiu11 ol 1110re tlun one dwelling, ead1 hav111g s11Jlkie11l laml ar<:a tu conform tu the rni11i11111111 area req1iireu1ents, the orcli1rnm:e will nut gc:ner,dl)' lie uinslrued as pern,ilti11g mily u1w dw,,lling, on the tlwury I lral wl11le a llliflilllulll area peer dwelling is provided for in the ordi11am:e, 110 111.1xin111111 is tl1erein pro­ vided:' 'i 3'.!.0:J Exemption l'rovisious in Ordinances In recog11iuo11 of the du11b1f,il validity of the reslridion asap­ plied to s11b,tamlard lots nisli11g at tlw li111e of passage of the urdi11a11ce, most ordina11ces specilically exe111pt lots having less than tlie required area 011 th,, c,llecl1ve dale ol ti«, ordi11a11ce. A similar exe111pliun of a 111i11i1111.1111 lru11L1ge req11irt:lll<'llt is often pruvidcd in favor of Juts that are al l,:a:,t of a specilied, although s11bstaml.1nl frontage ur width. \Vlwre the ordi11am:e provided for a11 aulu111atic :!.O perc,,1tl r,·ductiu11 in tlw lot area requirements in tire case uf' a lot 1,eld in :.i11gle a11d St:p,,r,lle uw1H:r,hip at the t:lfi:ctivc dai<: ul tlr<.: urdi11anc·e, ii wa, lield th,1t 1l1eJ'(: was no re· q11ire111eul ll,at the ,i11gl,, aud sepa1alc ow,11:rsliip cu11li1111e fur a11y periud of li111e and that there was si111ply the qucsliu11 of fact which cu11ld lie dekr111i11ed by p11hlie record wh,,ther the parcels in que,tiun were l,eld in single a11d separate ownership on tire dale of tl,e enactrne11l of the ordi11anee. lf they were, tlie peli• tio11er was entitled lo the be11elit ol the :?.O pen:ent l,ll area a11d 3 87 NJ. Supl'r, ,ti JJ{j, ~]5 A.~J at 5il. -' Mu~Je111 fluddv1) V. Building I11.,peclur, 107 Old,L 80, lUH P.2d 8J3 ( 10-W); Vdl.1ge ol llwn llwok,tlle v. Torr, 7 ~Ii.,"' ~d 725, 151l N.Y.S.id 8HLl ( 1958), ·' \ .✓ I ... ,. .. , s :J2.0:l SUBSTANDAHD LOTS 32-7 fnrntag<.: red11ctio11 am! the side and rear yard reductions pro­ vided fm i11 the s11bseq11e11t section, of the ordinauce, If they were 11ut, then, since the ordina11ce ibelf 1J1ade nu provision for variances but ouly for special exceptions such as the 20 perce11t red11cti11n, the lamlowuer's application for relief was held one which !rad lo be construed as one for a variance.1 Where a provisio11 of this sort is met, that is, where a lot, while nut k1viug a frontage equivalent tu tl1at set forth iu the ordinance as !he generally req11ired fnmlagc, 11evertlieless is at least equal to tl1e le.,ser frulltage specified i11 the exception, there is a legal right lo a permit nl!der the terms of the exception, Where the area or frontage is nut eve11 eq11al tu the lesser area or frontage provided for in the exception, the11 the owner's recourse is to ap­ ply for au urea variance, and, while the board of appeals, on such an application, may determine that the plot is too small or too irrc:,gular in shape to be used fur the purpose permitted by the ordinance all(] that the pl1Llic interest requires that such use be forbidden, such determinatiou would result in confiscation of the properly uuder the rule laid down in the cases in Section 32.02. Most litigation in s11lislandard lot cases deals with the interpre­ tation or application of provisos contained in the exemption clause of si1ch minimum area or minimum frontage provisions. These provisos usually atte1upt to deny the exemption tu an owner who has or has had adjacent land which, if added to the claimed sub­ sta11darcl lot, would render the latter conforming, or, at least, less suli,tandard. In cumtrui11g the,e provisions, the New York courts have gener­ ally followed the rule that the regulations are tu be construed in favor of the property owner. In tlie absence of an unambiguous requiremenl iu the ordinance lhat the separate ownership of a rnbstall(lard lot, adjacent tu one on which there is a dwelling, must be continued up tu the date of the application for a special perrnil for its me, such rec1uirement would not be read into the exemption provision, allll owners of both lots who had held the vacant lot adjaceut to their improved one for a number of years were e11titled to the exception permit.2 I Fcldrnu1> v. CommcrJingcr, 26 Misc. 2J 221, 213 N.Y.S.2d 484 ( 1960); Maller of So111111ese ( Zoning BJ. of Appeals of Hempstead), 22 Misc. 2d 628, 201 N.Y.S.2<l fllU ( Hl60). 2 Dedcciug v. Johnson, 2J~ N.\V.2d 913 (Minn. HJ76), citing text ch. 32; Allen v. Adami, 39 N.Y.2d 275, 3-17 N.E.2J 890, 383 N.Y.S.2d 505 ( 1976). The ur<liuaw.:e in the Allen case pro1,idcd: "A lot owned individually and .separately, I /: ,, :J:!-8 TJII,: LAW 01, ZONINC AND J'L:\NNINC s :J2,0:l \Vl11,re a11 "'' lin:lllcu r<:ad, in p.trl: "( d) [ i'J )" new li11ildi11g sl«dl l,e ,·reeled on a11y plot i11 rcsi­ d,:11cu I! district wliil'!t 1,as a lrrn,tage of lc,s tl1an 7~i fe<:I allll a loi:tl pl,,1 :,r,·a uf 1<01 l.:,s ll1a1< 7500 :,quMe f,,et, will, tl1i, "xccpli0<1, l1uw1:ver; tl1al a li11ildi11g llld1/ ill, nrTlnl u11 a plul ,,I l,;s, tl1a11 7:'j "'"' fro11Lt,\l' ii llUI lcs:, 1!1,111 .l(J feel, a11d was i11 ,·,islt:<H'C al ti,., li1,1,· ul the adupliu11 .. f tl,is urdi11a11ci:, a!ld 11111 111111"'di:ill'ly :idjac,,111 to uilll'r fr<J11L,_l!,t: 11ndc:r tl1e '.)alllC The court held tl1,it the latter part uf this paragraph should lie as ft>lluws: "alid w.1s ill ,·xi,t!'11u: at the tit11e nl tl1i:; urdi11a1H·e a11d 11ut ill1111<;di,1t,,ly u/ tlii: liu1,: of the 111/oJJ/iu,1 of t/11: ur,li11,1111:c to ulhn frontage uf the"'""' mv11cr,liip." Tl1nl'idl'l.', althu11gl, the 1wtilio11er in that case i<CI I' ,ired s11flicie1, I ad1oi1ii 11g !Hilpert y :t ft ,·r I lie urd ina11ce lieca11w ellt:L'live, alld at tit" l1111e uf tl,c: pmcet:di11g owned liullt ,1f tl1,:n1, ti was ltcld that ilw onli11;111,·e, l,y ,ts wurdi11g, rd1:rn:d tu adjan.:1<1 parci'ls ill :,111gle ,,w111:rsltip al tl1e lilll,; of the e11act­ lltvlll ol th,, u1·di1«111,·e, 1l11:rd1,rl', tl,e rigl,t to IJ11ild 11pun a sul1- SLlllda1 d lut, whi('h I 11.:ca,11,, v,·st,,d al t It,, l i111t: uf I lie passage of th,: ur,li,1,t11,·1:, <'<Hild 11ul IH: d1vi:sit:d by a suli:;1•q1wnl purchase uf a1111tlll:r aud <1dioH1i111• piitn:l.3 <llld :>{'j1<11,dvd lio111 any <1dJd111111g 11,wh of Lind CHI J,111 22, J'.J(ii, which 11,l;,, u {1J!.il Hli'd 01 wHllh !1•y, lhd11 111e.-it:1d11•d !1ctl:i11 111.iy la: 11.-.l:d l11r a UUl"-Lw1dy rc:,Hlc11rn lo HA IJ1sl11d:. ,llld ,I l\\o IHHIII)' 1t::,1d1·11n· in HB IJ1:>l1id:-, piov1dnl -~udi lul :.h,dl Le .lcvdupcd in nmlwn1Hy with ,di ,qiplii·dlile d1,l1id rl'gul.iliom, uthl'r lh,dl tlu.! 11ii11in1u!Jl luL a11',L .tthl lut h'!dtli 1c(jt!IJL·1111.·1tb, and with the 111111l11n1li1 .~ide )',11d:, :,d lt11th lwluw." C1ln:.t111i11g .tnd ,qiplyiug the ord111,llH'.t' :,t1wtly, .1 divided cuu1l lil'!d th.it ,1 lut \\!11d1 \\'.l::. uwiwd ">l·p,t1,lkiy fro111 .1djiHn­ it1g propctty on lht' datt: .'<JJ1:cdi,·d 1p1,d!fied lur till' t:.\('qlliu11, 1":c11 !hu11gh tlie1e­ afkr llw u\vnc1 acqui1cd ,1 nJJit11;t1<111::: 111111np111v1·d :,uli•,iaud.inl !t1l lio111 a1wthcr. S111ce the std.lJl't:I lot Ii.id l,t~1·n u•,v1n·d 1ndn iclu,dly ,1ml :.ql,ll.1kl)' uH lite crit1c,tl d,1tc\ tlu: LUllllllOH t)Wlh:1:,liip ,llJ::.Hq~ the1t~,dlL'f did rnH (:llnl ,1 111c1ger, wldch would 1e11tlvr the t'Xu·rit1011 i1Lq,plic,dJ!l'. 3 Crawford v. !\I il 11·1, llltH:po1 tcd, l'J Y, I ,.J ., Sqil. 1 J, H)))7, at 12 ( c111ph.1;,i:, lJ}' tlw court l. T1> !ht· :,,11111· v!lnl, ,ice F111,l ll1,1nt•:;, Inc. v. lkd,i.[, 20·1 N.Y.S.id /JU, 21 1'!1.\c. '2d t:i2J ( J\JliO), 111 \\llldi the .. -u11rt hv!,I 111,il .'>!lll"t' thL' ::inbJt:t:I J)<llCl·l ind lh1: 1t:qunc11u·1ds uf ll1c u1d1n.1111·l' 111 tli.il 11 W,l), i11 ::.1ng),, c,1·p,t1,lle d\Vlll't:J11p ut llw time of d1t: cH,wl1111•J1t id tl1L· 111 llin.11H\', tla· !10.itd !tad 11(1 .i11thority lu deny th1· ,q1plw,tli1ll1 ll1nci11 :iolc!y lwc.itt)t" Hdd111u11,d prupi·dy Wd'> :-.ubwq11l·ut!y <tt.:q111rcd !Jy tlie ,1ppliL·,1nl. Scl'. ,d,u F .. ldu1,u1 v. Cuw1Jh:1du1gn, N. I :i11prn, lll \\ !ud1 !lie 1JHlin.i1H.'L' ,tlc,u 11:LdL·,! old) lo till· \lt11,diu11 llf a !ut ilt•ld in :,111~;le ,11u..l •,q,.ir.ite 1n\11v1:-.l1rp .d l111· e!lvd1v1· date of ll1L' 1Hdi11>1t1n:. The c1111rt c,l,tlt.'d lh,d ila•1e w,1:, llll lnjllit1·1111.·nt th,d t!w :.iHgl1' ,ind .,qL11,1k uw11v1.•,lnp cun!11111c \, S :J2,03 SUBSTANDARD LOTS 32-9 J II a subsequellt case,'1 however, tlte same court construed an urdina11ce which exernpl<;d from ils application substamhrd plots wht:re the owner had uo contiguous la11d, but which did nol set forth aHything with respect to the lime when this situation must t:xi:;I, as applying to all cases where the exceptional situation existed at the ti111e of tl,e applicution fur a vmi1mce. The court said that the gist of the amcndme11t was lo limit the exception so that il was 110 longer applicalile if the minimum size requirement provided for iu the ordinance could have been complied with through the ownership of adjacent land either at the time the onlinaucc look effect or al any time thereafter, A merger is not effected merely because adjacent lots have come into cornmon ownership• in the absence of a specific merger clau.,e. • \Vhere the ordinance exempted Jots of less than the reqnired width provided Sllch lot "was shown and building line established, if any, on a map duly filed" with the county register, it was held that such exemptioll w,1s not lin1ited to lots held in single, sep­ arnle ownership, llowever, the court held it could not, in the certiorari proccedi11g lidore it, consider the conslitulionality of an arnendrne11l enacted subsequent to petitioner's application for a variance, which amendment exempted only lots in different owuership from that of adjoining land 011 the effective <late of the ft1r auy period of time, 11or Wib there any condition that subsequent common ow11er:diip woul<l h11p,1ir rights ulrcady established, and lhat if the lot in question ,,•a~ held i11 ~inglc St'jW.ratc owm·rship al the lime of the effective date of the L11dwam:c, the owner thcrt'of hud a stututory right lo it::; use. Bulh of these c,1:.e:.. ,1pprn\ etl and folluwc<l in Soros v. Board of Appeals. 50 Misc 2d 205, 2u9 N.Y.S.2d 7\l(J ( Hl66), alf'<l 27 A.D.2d 705, 277 N.Y.S.2d 821 ( tOtrl). \Vhere an ordi1rnncti proviJe<l for un exceptiou frorn minimum area require- 111cnts pern1illing con.'llrndio11 of a house on a small area provided the applicant uwue<l no other contiguous la11d, fixiug no ti1ne when lhe exccptiou need exist 1 all all ,lpplicant had lo du wa!i lo arri.lnge liis affairs so ,1s lo bring hi1n.self within tlw cxccption at the time of the application. Con~equcntly, even though after ac• quiriug a larger art'a :io thal lie had owned :,,;uHit:icnt land to comvly wilh the 01di11auvc provision~, an ,tpplic;111t diveslcd hilw,t:lf of title to a portion thereof, leaving bim:-.elf witl1 tit~ re1n,limler which c,11ne within the C>..(.'eption, il was hdd d1<1l lw was enlillcd to a pn1nil. Edlu Custom Builders v. Yuung, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 25, J!J5G, a/I'd 3 A.ll.2d \J:!2, Hi:l N.Y.S.2d U52 ( I\J57 ). ·1 Huuan Hl.'ult)' Corp. v. Y(h111g, lo i\·list·. 2d llD, 182 N.Y.S.2d 1:32 ( lD58). • llcmluch JJ,,,. Corp. v. l,lcCu,re, 35 A.D.2d 5H7, 313 N.Y.S.2J 008 ( JU70). il-Soros v. Hoard uf Ap1wab 1 N. 3 supra; F'd<lman v. Commerdingcr, N. l .supra; Fi11a I fumes, Iuc. v. lkckcl, N, :l :-.upra. ~ :l:!-JO TIIE L:\W ()!' ZONING AND l'LANNINC !:j :l:!.ll:l urdiJ1,111ce tl,irly-five y<0ar, 1,dmi,, ,iltl10t1gli, JJJJ till: f;ice of it, iii<: '""'''"l111ent was clearly void for retrna,.·tiv,ty 'l'l,e cuJJrt 1t:­ "'""'lt-d 11,c 1nalkr tu tl1t: bu.ml fur n:u111:,iil,,i.itio11 ill light ol tl,e ,·li:aily c:.,laiJl"l,cd pr.tc·lit·al dilliculty a11d JJIJJJJ:ces,ary li.ird l,,;ivi111~ tl1<: quesliu11 uf 11JJCUJJSlitutiu11;ility OJWJJ for s11IJSe­ q Ut.:lll tlcl,;11nindtiu11. 7 l11 C/url.c ll. Hurm/ 11/ Ap1wt1/s," tlie zoJJi11g unlinam·e required a llllJJlllllllll llli ,llt:d ul 1().11111) S<Jllare feet lu,· a <Jill' L11uily lJ<H1Se, except as lu iliost: lots d11ly ,·culld<:d liy a plaJJ "' d,,ccl al till: liJJ110 uf the aduplioJJ of tl,e rnlrictiull if tlie rcq11m,r11c1Jb in regard lu \\'ere 111cL The llllli11am·t: was ,llllt:JJd<:,I i11 l'l-10 to provide that JJutl,iJJg sl1u11ld pr<:vt:JJI nll»lructiu11 uf a IH1ddillg (HJ a lut uf '1JJallt.,r arc::t, 11rnvided ot1ch Int did 11ul the ,a111e uw11,·r av:td,il,1,· /,>r me i11 u>111iectio11 with such l'laiJJiill pull'k1,,,,.] a l,ll wlti,·li 11;1,I liee11, frnlll IU2'.l tu l!)57, ll1e date ui till· p11rc:li.,w, i11 co1111111JJJ uw11crsl1ip w11!i a11 adjoi11i1Jg lot. Buth ur tlie,,t· luts well: ,L:paraU:ly de,uil,cd i11 ili:i,ds uf cuuvey­ a11ce tu a cllllil!Hlli gr,.1!ltve ill !~J~U 1 SC\'L'rill year:-.i prior lo tliL: uf Ilic zu11i1,g l,yL,w. Tl1<· t.·uurt li1cl,I tl,at the lwo exemp­ tiu11:, i11 tlw ordilla11c,:, as .tJJll:JJilcd, W<'n: to he appl1t;d a11d co11- sidercd ,,1:parately, a11d tl1,l1 ,i11i:1: the e;_,•11Jpti1J11 ,·u1llai11ed in the original l,yL,w rderri11g lo lut.1 t.·1JJ1veycd liy ,,.par:ile wa, applil'abli:, tl1e l':ll'I tl,,11 I.he uw11er had '" uf 11u i111p1JJl;1111e, aJJd hi: wa, 1·J1l1lled tu !J11ild a !1t1111e wl,icli c11111plinl with th,: y:ird r<:>111ir<:JJ1<:llh llll l1is lul, althuugh it co11- laini:d o,ily 2,'/fi(i square led. Tlte cu11rl poiJJted 01,t that ii there liad l,e,:l\ ;,11 i11i<:JJli1111 lo "Jll'IY tl11: provi.,tJ ,h tu ll\Vliership of additi,,11;,I la11d In 111<: e,11lic:r e\<:JJ1j1li11u, it ,!11,uld have IH:eJJ e:-. pressed. Tlie uw11er uf sep;ir;it,· cu1Jt1guo1Js lot, whi<:h are otherwise entitled to a11 exe111pliu11 fr,JJJJ lhc rnure reslrl<'live requirenw11ts uf an aJJ1e11dllluil lo wl,ic-1, sue!, i11dividu;il lots do 1101 cotilurn,, may lu:,e Im ;11l;•a11i.,g,., liy !,cl1aviur which n•,,,dt, i11 all ,,lia1Jdo11- rne1Jl or aliolitioJJ of the· i11d1v1d11,d lut lilies. '!'111is, in Por/.:s '-'· 13oun/ of Co1111t11 Co,11ni'rs," tli1: uwner l11,t Ill•, right tu develop the i11dtvid11,il luts by IJJJlit'rtaki11g lo dt:v,·lop 1li,·111 with a proji,t·I wl,icli ig1111n:d the imlivid11al lo! li11es and lre,ited the parcel'" a si1,gle z"'li11g lot. Si111ilarly, ii has IH:,m l,dd that the fili11g of a 7 T1t1i.i111} v. ci1d11h1, Ii,\ n :·(d u:).1, 1:10 N Y.S.:ld ·,s.1 ( 1~JSH). u l~,5 N.F.'.2-d ·;.~-I ( I\L1'.):> l\1·1\j)_ u 501 JJ:2.d lb ( the. :\pp. I!/','.!). I. ,I !j :]2,!J.I SUBSTANDARD LOTS 32-11 revised plat rnl,seque11t to the e11ac;trneut uf a more wstrictive a111endment which ch,mge,I the boundaries of the original lots wl,idi were entitled lo an exemption, resulted in the loss of such ext;rHptiun.10 § 32.04 Substadtial llclationship to Purposes of the Police Power vVhere the ordina1Jce does uot except Jots in single separate owuership which have less area than that required by the or<li­ llance, and there is 110 other feasible permitted use for the lot except for the cu11slruetio11 of a dwelling, the insistenee of a buard of appeals upon compliance with the area ( or froutage) requirements constitutes an unconstitutional deprivatioll of prop­ erty. The lamlowner, in sudt case, is entitled to a building permit on cu11stitutional grou11ds even after the denial of a variance.1 _ Even where a Jut is 11ot in single and separate ownership, ii'1 that the owner thereof owns contiguous property with whieh the area of the claimed substanarcl lot could be combined to form ope lut equal to or larger than that called for by the ordinance, in su111e situations a constitutiuual rigl1t to utilize the area as a sep­ arate zoning lot may nevertheless be found. The test in these cases is whether prohiLiti1Jg the use of the land as a separate lot for a separate dwelling bears a substantial relationship to the purposes Jo Stale ex icl. La Voie v. Building Comm'n, 135 Conn, 415, 65 A.2<l 165 ( HJ-18). I D1ll111er V. Ep,(d11, :J.l A.D.:l<l 075, :110 N.Y.S.2c 5-10 ( l\J70); Mandalay Co,>Str. Co. v. E,cli:slou, H A.IJ.2tl Hl8, 185 N.Y.S.2<l 84 ( 1959). ln the latter c,1:;:c, the court L:ited, in .~uppoil of tliis prnpo!-iition, Macchia v. Board of Appeals, 7 ~li,e. 2d 763, lo-I N.\'.S.2tl ,!(J3 ( HJ57 ); l\ichu1<b v. Zoniug B<l. of Appculs, 285 App. Div. 287, 137 N.Y.S.2J 603 ( l\J55}; and Fl,•ming v. Choate, 8 A.D.2d UU~J, HJO N.Y.S.2d 7•Jl ( 105D). In t.•,u:11 of the three cases cited in MtJndaluy, as in 1\fo1ulalt1!J il~clf, however, .ivphcatiou!:i lo ll1e boa1d for a variunce lrnd been mi.I.de an<l dcnic<l. In the lhu·e cases, the question of lhe neee.ssity of :auch an appeal w,1,-; nol n.!fo1 n·d tu by lhL· courl. ~vcn though lhti uwHcr uf prnpcrly \vliich cnn.­ out v1n1fu1111 to tlie I equ11 e111c11ls of tlw orclinaucc i::., uudcr the c.:ir(;1t1H.'>tt1nces out­ lined, e11tilled lo a buildi11g pt:n11it without the giant of a variance, it 1.s not usual for llic a<l11ii11lslr,llivc olficer to rccog11ize :i:udl right aw.I to ,1ssume the n:spon.si­ l;dity of i~s11i11~~ a pl'nnif. It ,~ 1nn<"h IIHlrc comnwn for the hnH.low11l'f lo Le ad­ vi.•,cd tl1t1l an appe,d to the lioilfd of ,1ppcals is necc,<,!)aJ"y. lu view of the 1dw:tancc of cu11rts to 1•11forvc co11.-.lil11tio1i.d I ighb tlim1114h ruaudamus pro<..'ceclmgs, an ap­ peal to the lmar<l ui ,1ppe;Lh, uud judicial H'view of an adverse <lctern1i11alion of that IJ1,:11J i.s pwb,d,I}' llie 1uo~t pnu..:tical rncthod uf securing the required vuriancc w!1c1e the curn,titutioual iights, a.s outliHed in Ditt111er, are not recognized by the lrnildi11g in~IJt:dtJL :12.12 TJH; LAW CW :LUNINC AND l'L,1.NNINl; ti 32.(J.I "' ilit: p11liu: power, ll1is rt:lati1J11sliip urncilly l,·11m ul il1t• ,·l1ar,11·lt:r ul 1111: dislrivl ur Iha! advl'r.•,tc r:ilt'l'I llll otl1cr zo11i11g 1rnrpust:s. cApreJ~t:d i11 ii wu1ild have a11 Tl,c: s1!11.ilt1ll1 is n,·111plili<'d 111 /1i1'iere ,,. ilw plai11till S<J11gli1 Jwlg111l'11i mdi11a11t·" uf !lie dl'ie11da1il, low11 of I 'f'uw11 of lle1111,.1·1rnd.2 tl1t: liuildi11g zo11e 111w1111stil11tio11,,I in tli;ti ii prol1il,it,·d th,· <'r,:clio11 "fa, 011 a forty fool mv11nl liy plai11!1II. l'riu1 lo IU:)I, wht:11 !Iii, 01di11a11ce was ,11J11.·11dcd lu ru 111i1<' fil1y liv" fool lrnnlage and li,(10() :;quarc loll[ area, the plai1Jtill U\Vlli'" Jrn,r adpLt:~ll luis, ,·acl, lwc111y Ly 110 le,·!. ( J11 l\\'1! lots, agqegali11g forty hy l ]() lel'I, tl1t:re was lucal('.d a tlwcl!i11g; tl11! .1dju111ing Juts, uf L'<Jlli.tl 'liZt\ were vacaul. !11 1!!51, ll1e 11rdi11a1111· pn1vi,1u11 was ree11acli:d Ii! provide 111,tl St:p,11.1k uw11n•.l,ip cu11ld 11111 lie u,:.ticd liy .,ulidividi11g lots ilia! had ,,,,111,· i11to c11m111111, uw11er,,hip ,is !lie,<' J1,1d. J.'i11ding that Qu p,_,1,_·t:11! "! iii,· !1Jb i11 Ilic'""" 111 1vliicl1 plai11till's l"Is were li)(',1ied 11,,·,e 111.T11pi,,d "' l11rty fllul p,1r,:i·I, ,111<1 11,.,r tlic val,w of the twu v:11·,1111 J,,1, ii m,·d 1ndy a, ,111 ;1dp111d 111 1l1i: dw<'lli11g wo,i!d lie IIIJ 1;r1:Jit:r I l1e111 .j; I ,Ouo, wl,il,· tlii:ir vali11: 11 mvd f11r cumlrm·tiin1 uf ,I squr;,!t:, si11gl1· h1,11d\' 1e•,11k11te Wlllild lie $ti,IJ/ll) lo $/i,500, a1H.! thi: 1·1·id,,11,·,: liei111; tl1,1l ,,i11,·t: tlii, :u1,,1 11-,1, c111<1pletcly devel- 1,11 forty lout plt1i.s, tlin,· '"'"" !!I' "'' "dv,·rs,, ell't:ct <HI li,-.iltl1, s,d<'.i)', :,11d gc11cral w,·IL1rl'. if tl11., lwo V'11:a11l l111s w1·11: used f"r ill<.: c11·, li1J11 ul tll<· dwelli111,,, 1111, comt l1eld !11,11 wliil1, limita­ liu11 uf 1111· ,i:1: of IJ11ilili11g i,lut., is a 1:111,sli11llit111,,I 111eanc, ,if cu11- lrnlli111; p11p11l.1t1u11 d,·mily i11 ti,,, i11li:rc.,I o/ p1d,li,· l1e,iltl1, safl'ly, ,1111! w,·ll.,1c, ii was i,q11ally l111t< tl1,1t 1111' IH1rde11S, as far as pos­ sil,le, 11111,1 IJ,: eq11ally di,,l1 ilH1ied dllll, wh,,11 tl1c adp1st111e11I lie­ co1111:s so Ol!l' sided .t~ to he 11111L:a.:i:onal;lt~ dlld arliitr;iry, 111u11'L'CS·· sary to t!it: prnl'rvati1111 ul !Iii, wl11·1111, and p11qrn,e as ,1 wliule, 11,c point wlie1c ;111 11w11<'r is d1•1lfivc:d "f a11y Lc1u, :l ,JO l\11:-d', '.!.d l.S:!, ~.j~ N.) .\.~'.,! '/'/!l ( 1:)/i'.1). Tu tliv :.;11111• dlt·d, ~t·t· llyudiuL v. (:i1y u! t:l1w,1gu, c!O! N.1-:.::d fl (J!l. ,\11p. l!f1:J). ln T(J\\H uf S11rf:iidc \/, Arn!it:ws, HIJ S.;. ~~d ;!H7 ( t·li. [q(ifi.), ,,n JHJtlllction !L.,l1<1rni11g tlit: tnw11 f1u1n i'HIUl('it,g tlie 1t·q111r,·11w,,t ,JJ idly !1iul !i1l l\-t,11!1, \\l1i~!, WtHdd !td\'e Jlfl.'Vl'llkd pl.1i11tdl f101n ,,ncrillg l\•,n liudd11H!·, l1w,dcd ,in ,tdJuu11n~i lut:,, so ,1:, to !1l'f 111 li,111: .i hw1\1· 1111 ,1 !or l1H!)'·<'l)~l11 !1 i:!, 7 indH:::. wHlt· 1111 rn1v •,1dl' a11d !1•.s,::. <Jll tlii' 11t!w1, wl1t'H' <'ldu11c1nt·iil 1d tlw tt",l11du111 W<Hild !\",ult III a lu::.s to pL1111Jifl \\'l1nli \\,l:. ll()t li.d.11w,·d li; ;t 1·11H111w11•.11r.tk 1~,ii11 l,1 tlw n11H11l11oity w,1:i iqila:ld 011 ,qipv;d, appli1\dhJ1h l111 '. ,tfld11n .\ lid\ JJq~ li\·1·11 dt 11!l·,i !<'1ill111g v. JJ,du111- !,,), 21 N.Y.:.!d JO, :2:u N.!<.:2,1 Fi'.2, :!hli N.\'.S,'.!d ~w ( l!Jo7), :\tilVll11 ,·. r-..Joyl,w, Ji{) /\ti.,,c :!.,l 10'.l[, :lll1f✓.).'1211 'J(if:, ( l!JIJ!l), ()\t·ilidl llld.1;. Corp ,. IJvl,L1t1·y, ~H N.Y.:~d .JJ:l, .l~:..'. N.Y.S2d !i:Jli, :!71 ,\J.l<:..d 5J'/ (IU71J, .111d wt·~ :l:2.UD i1d1a _, ~ \i I Ii. "\'"f ti 32,05 SU l.lSTANDAHD LOTS 32-13 lil'ial or profitable me of !;is property, the11 the court sliould step in a11d allurd relief. The court found there was no evide1JCe that _lire, police, sewerage, garl,age, or any other governmental servic:es would be overburde11ed by tlie use of the vacant lots for a separate dwelling. "Under such circumstances, the relationship to health, safety a11d general welfare of a 55-foot frontage 6,000 square feet area rcq1iircmenls is largely limited to the light and air bcuefit derived by the property adjoining the vacant lots. Against that limited ( and csseutially private) benefit is to be balanceJ the value of the lut under the present zoning in relation to its value as a usable 40-fool plut." The euurt held that the restridion, deslruyiug as it did the greater part of the value of the property, bore no reasoualile relation to the health, safety, and general welfare. § 32.05 Doctrine of Single, Separate Ownership Where Only One Lot Vacant In some cases w4ere the lot fur which a permit is sought is a. vacant lot adjacent to a developed lot of conforming size in the same owuership, the cuurls have held that the vacant lot must be cu11sidered without relation tu the develuped lot. This concept is illustrated in li11rke v. /3uurd of Adjust111e11t.1 There, prior to the arnc11d11ie11t of the zuning orcli11ance increasing minimum frontage frun1 fifty feet lo 101) feel, the property owner had purchased I wo adjacent fifty fuut lots with the intent of building 011 each of them, am! did in fact build a dwelling 011 one of these lots prior lo the amendme11t. It was held unreasonable and arbitrary lo deny her a variance ltl permit a dwelling on the remaining vacant lot. The ordi11auce exempted from the lot area and lot width l<'IJuirernent, those lots separately owned aud not adjacent lu ,lll)' lot in the same ow11ership on the clfec.:tive date of the urdin.inee. The courl said the purpose of this provision was to allow a dwelling uu a fifty foot frontage, unless the owner him­ self had the wherewithal to make his lot comply with the new I 52 N.J. Super. 4f)8, J.l5 A.2d 7fJ0 ( App, Div. ID58). Aud to the same effect, !,el: Ardoliuu v. Buard uf Adiust111l'lll, 24 N.J, o~i ( W57 ); Kryscnski v. Shenkin, 5.! NJ. S1tpcr. 5fJ, H8 A.2d 58 ( 1059); Chrislcusco v. Thurber, 2fil P.2d 312 ( Cal. l 053). The Lid t h,ll adjoilliug parc:cls had nc\'cr l.wcn used as unc parcel was t·111pl1as1zed in Auu.:llo v. Moylan, UO t\1isc. 2d 10:J-l, 30,i N,Y.S.2<l 765 ( J Uf-:i!)), 111 which dl·ui,d of a v,m,mcc was u11n111led on tlw authority of Fulling v. l'al"/1(1,o, 21 N.Y,2,1 :w, 2:J:l N.E .. 2d 272, 280 N.Y.S.2<l 24U ( Hl67 ). ,· :1:t-1-1 '1'111~ l .. \W Ill,' '/UNINC ANU l'L,\NNINC s :l2.05 r,-q1111u11t·1tl.1, tl1,1l i,, c1c!J;"·,·1il prnpt:rly, i11 wl11tli cve11l lie did 11u! Jlec,! ,1 vati,111cc al !lie t·.\jH'Jl:..i('. of t!tt' cu1i11111111ily al la1g1:. "H11l llie c.\cl11.'l1tH1 nf 1'10:,1: lut-i ildp1ce11t lo dll}' !ut in tl1e sa111e 11w11c1,' d1Jc:; 11,,1 J;iitli111lly r,;Jl,"·I lli1, plll'pm,· uJ tl1e provi,i<J111· 111dt'.•,:, ii ,,, li1111it"d lu Viit:i111l c1dj;ice11t lut.,. T}1;il pla111iill finds 11,·1 ,elf \VII I, tl1e l lul wlri1.·h '""''"''" uf tlir: dwelli11g llw1c1J1, .•,111: ,·:111111,t 11\e lo 111akc lul Iii 't:iinq,I,•' i.1 clearly 111i r,:,1:,t111 l,ir d,·llyi111•, I"'' th., lll·111:lil ol ll,c ,·ik,I '.lllll:!1orativi: prn­ vis1l11is. lle,ili,lic,1llv plc1i,i1ill 1,as ii l1u11•,('. 01, 1J11t: :,o foot lut ;iml l\l,1Jll1cr l'ilc·:IJII .':ill r»IJ[ !,Ji' ti ,111: C'.illl!IJ[ IJ11ild (Ill il1t• la lier it \\•ill 111; l111<0vcr meless; tl,;it il1t: lw11 luis ;ire ailJa1.·,·1il d"'" 1tol JlJilig;ilt: !it'r !t.u,l,_L;,, "2 111 Finu j/unu: ... ·, lt1c. v. Y011111~,3 l1owcvt.:r, New York's cuml 1,-j,:,:it:.I il1t: vit:w that a cla11.se exe111plillg ,111ly a lot "'JJ­ '.li;1il'.I)' 1iw11,,d ,1ud 1111t i11 11,e s;i111,• 1J\Vlwr,l1ip a.s a11 adjoi11in1~ l1Jt li.,d 111, appli,:allillt wl1e1t: o,ily \Jill'. of ll1t; 101.s was vacant, '.llid held th;it wlin,: tllle p:t!Tcl 1,ad IH:<:i, IJ11i!1 IIJHJ11, 1l,e vacalll adjui11i1,g p,11,·,·I l'llli!d ;ilso IH' lit1ill IIJ'llll tJ11ly wl1t'1t: tl1e co11tiguous prnp­ ,:,11,·s }1;1t! iH:<'.11 11cill1t:,· 1Jt:r-11picd 11ur '"''d a, ,, ,i11gle pare,:!. Tl1<: '>an1,· 1:01pl1:1.1i:, "l""' 1!11: 1«:J·r:s:;ily "I kt'cping ;idjoi11ing 1,,1,; .SVJ)dJdlc 111 l!it:ir 11',t' l:i lou11d i11 uthcr C\l)l''J. !11 dl1 ()regun casc,"1 ti«: 1i1v1H_,r lust Iris 11gl11 lu d .. v,·l,1p i1,divid1ul l,,ts, oll1e1wise ,•.\,;n1pt, l,y lllldl'1Lil,1111\ lu devcli,p ~li.·JJ1 w11h ;( project which igllo1cd illdivid11,1I Ill! li11,•s a11d t,e,tled tl,e p,m·1·l as a single l,1t, :111d wl1t:1t' a r,·vis.:d pl:11 w," lilcd, sul1si·q11,•111 lo 11,e ellae1111<:ill uf llltJfe :-..li 11q!,c1d r,:gllLil1n11s, l'l1d11gi1Jg tl1c !Jo111Hbries uf the urigi,1,tl l11ts wlii,·11 wr;,,_, 1c11litlcil lo an e.\c111pl1\J11, w;is lield [lJ r<:.sidt 111 Im,; ol !lie c·.xe1111'l1t111.0 2 J-15 .\. ~1.d ,d ~ni:1 J l·l /\li·,t· :.\! :)ltl, !'/7 N \':-..:~d ::d:-i (l~J.""Jtl}, ,dl'd l :\.l)'.2d HIH, 18:2 NY.S.:!.d :wu, .d!.d "/ N Y.:~r! H!:'°J. lo-I J'J L '..'.1! IH10, l~l(i N Y.S.~tl \J/l:) ( l~l58J. ln 1:111!111 1 ~ v. l',d11111!)(), I ::.11p1.1, tLI' l!Ll)(II H)' 1·n1phit'.Jl_(•d tli,d 111H; lul \\ ,1:, i1upruvcd wit Ii ,, ,l,\,ll11q4 \\l,1·11 1!1v ,1,!p,11H1q; l(d 1\,1', t,11nl1.t,nl .ind ",q,1,.11t·1Hly tlw lwd l\'l'lt' 1w11:1 11,rcl ,11,.J ,wc11p1cd ,l) d :,11,,L(k 1J11Jt (,1 lnlCL' .wp,ttdl<:d t!1l"1!1)." :2HG N.\',S.2d ,d '....'..SO, ~'. ! N Y.:id <ll :L'. 111 Lkdctlll~'. \ JJ,l10,1n1, ;'., Jll N_\\'.:!.d \JU ( \!11,u. l!fi'lJ ), !I w.i::. held th.it whc11: !11(-<1\".l!,·1 1d ,1 H1J111,J1dl11u111q: und,·\i !tqi,·,! l<Jl ,d,o (/\\11·, ,tn .idj.11"1·11t tJllrfnt·fu11,,t/ lul, llh· t-.,11 Lit·, 1HtJ,! lit· t·!!1Hl11t1cd, tli,· t111l!t ~Ldtng !lw, l,i !w p.i!licuLlily ,tp­ p111p11.1t1· \lhtit· !11,· lu! ,Hl',1 H'lJHH1nll'1il, 1\1'Jl' .,d11pl1·tl 10 Juitlw1.u11e ol :.l;lli• ;11,d C<i\Hd)' Ln\ ,l,·11.•,lly ·J11,1,·L1111l, d,·\cluji!J11·1d Lnd1,;, -~ l'.tiL, ,i 1l,1,11d iii t.'.11,11t1 l.w11i.1°1), \(1! 1):2.d t).'j (tli,· .'\pi, l'.Fl:!.). Ii \!,dt• <'.\ tt•I. L,1 \'ui,· 1 llHi!-ll!q•, t'.i,11J111'n, Jj.') !'.iJ1111 115, U5 t\.td Hit") ( l!l-111), "" j S :]2,0(i SU BSTA N DAHD LOTS s J2.00 Variations 011 the Theme ol Single ancl Separate Ownership I 11 Chcckerboanliug 32-15 Lt is uot t1llcmn1<1t111 lor owtwrs of pruperly lo attempt to se- 1·u1" vested rigltls ill a zouiHg classificatiou, in the face of a proposed ,rnd pellllii,g a1m,mlmellt to the zo11ing ordinauce which would require !artier lots, liy subdividiug their property into lots presently confonniug, and attcrnpting lo insulate these as against the more restrictive provisions by conveying alternate lots to other pcrsom, so that uo lwo adjacent lots would be in common owner­ ship and each lot wmild foll into the single and separate owner­ ship category. 1 The fact tl,at the landowner "eheckerboarded" by conveying cerlniu lots t1) rnnfcr Oil him aud his transferee the right to a cuutiuued llSe of the lots in the size existing prior to the amemlmeut i11creasiul,'; the required minimum size would not lllililate against hilll ill New York.2 A laudowner may assume the pruposed amemhnelll will not be enaeted and, until it is, he may perform any act lawful uuder the zoning ordinance as it tlien exists.3 Ill some cases, in which it was apparent that the grantee, or grantees, nf the alll'rnate luts was merely a surrogate for his trausferror in whom actual ownership allcl control remained, it was held that the doclriue uf a single ,rnd separate ownership I Thi.s prnd1u~ h knuwn ,,s "checked_;ot1rJing." "Sta11durd Lols and the Excep~ liun Ci..lu~c-'Chcckn-Bo,udiog' a!l'. a 111ea11s of cirel1mvc11tiuu," 16 Sy1ucu!ic L. Rev. fiJ2 (Spring HJGS). 2 CL Baypo1t Civic A:.:/11 v. Kochler, 1:rn N.Y.S.2.J 524, followed in Kulhncr v. 110111, N.Y.L.J., Ju11c 2U, Hl(H, at H. In th.it c.isc, while hearings wern in progress n:lali11g lo the a11ie1Hln1ent ol lilt' zuniug ordinance, the owners of a lot caused dcecb tu be rt:eurdl:d :,u th,1l th11.:c JMrccls were created, c,ldl being lield in single and :.cp.i.rntc owncr:-.hlp. h·11111l!:i were rclmctl lJy tht:: building: in!ipet:tor au<l, on ,qipcal, lhc boa,J yf :wHing ,L[>peals ,dfimwtl the detc1111i11ation, finding that the t Ull\'cyanc:e "wu:. ;111 olJ\'!011:-. citk111pt lo ddeal thl· pioceeJjngs to re-zo11e the area. Jf lauduwne1:, Wt:IC pt:111li1lcd lo cirn11uvc11t 1t:.t.on111g by unilater;dly ::.ubdividmg di(:![ laud just IJdore tlw d,1y 111 enadmenl, lheu tl1c towu could be preve11tcd from c.H:rci:.ing its cnnlwl over ZlH11ng." The cu111t :,lated that there was nnthi11g in lhe Towo I.aw .11t1r i11 the c;t:,l; Liw uJ till' State of j',Jew Yo1k which forbids a property ll\\'IH:f frorn L1)11vey1ll,.>: hi:. l.u1d ~o lliJt it 111ay uol l,e ~•1l1jed to ccn,1111 li111itations iu conlt·mplate<l zo11i1Jg 1un1~nd11w11ls. To :.,111n-effect ~cc t-,.,L,ttcr uf ~foskcland ( I lorn), N.Y.L.]., OcL 2H, l\Jli-l (Sup.Ct. S111l11lk Co.), 3 Cf. Harri, , .. C<>lky, lW N.Y.S 2d 8, l l, H t,,lisc. 2d UIG ( HJ57 ), alf'd 6 A.D.~d 8U8, 177 N.Y.S 2d 10i2 ( lfl58). :I:'. l(i 1'111< l.\\\' 111,· /()NIN<; .\Nil l'l .. \,'\:'\il\lC ~ :tUHi 1!1cl IJu/ ,q1ply :1 \\'!1("11· tlw1c !~ !!U J'Cljl!llt·J!H 11l !11;1( ;t .'iti!Jd11,.1::iiu11 !1r· ,(fl!1H1\1·d iii 1JJdcr lt!! ;t l!lclj) ~ltu\\'lll)!, 111d1v1d\l,tl luh lu !it: Jlt· 1d IH·ir1.1!, lil(·cl, there ;ire !ew pr()ldc111.'-i.1:, H11t JI, a;, i:) l!lc 11·,1·,1111!,ly iii,· 1·11·i{·, 1to1 !n1Jldii1~~ 1wn1ii! Il!.ty lit· l':,'-.,lWLI 1\}r tdll· i"UL(ll!ll ()jj ,I liJ! ~,,!U\\'H llll ;1 fi!,~d 111..lp \1,'!tll'l1 l1c1:.. lllll ll'L'l'i\'l'd ,qq11uvc1! 11111!t·1 ;ipp!1t·.ililt· .'.-:.t1IH!i,·i~,11.H1 111!,·•i ,1111! rt'gul~tliu1J<i,0 (1:i'II t]l!:, ,lt:\il't• I.') (J/ lit! 11'_,e !JI ;1vui1li11,1~ t!ic: t"l')-',11Ldiu11.-,_ l ,;t -1 ll.,cl, tu IL,cl, "' "I." ,l,,11Jt:d Lois ()!l11·r \1!11,t!iu11) i11 \\'l1i(·l1 tlw c!ol'l1i11t' ul :i111glt~ a11d separ.dt• o\1'11,•i,,l1ip 11.i:, lll'vll 11<·1.I t() "l'Jll)' arc 1110,.,· 111v,i!v1111; lols wl1icl1 art' !JJ(·I. lu !i,n-k, Ld\'Htg ;t ('1JJ1l111u11 rt'.tJ !11H:, ") ." rt:,tr !ill<' nf tltW l)i.'!ll[~ tu l !11: '.Jltlc lJr illl' ullH~r, 1·;wl1 l1avi11~ lru1tl ai~c u11 ii ddl(·11'1il 'illtT!, liil;; ill l\Vu ddlt:1c1d /.u11iHg districl:), aitd !nl'., willi lldlcrt:1d, ,1lll11Hq~l1 1cLtll·d, !JWIICI'~ t/ 1n:(11'd. \Vlwrc dtl·rt; itli.' li<1cL (!J !J:1t·k Iii!:-, i11 U11t~ uwHcrship, c;1t.l1 f1tlllfi1.1.;t• 1n1 d p,11,t!l1·I •,!1ci•t, t11HI tltc :,11!):)i:1p1t:11t dcvclup- 111t:1d ul tile' ,;1dire !ilt>t L i:, !li,d uJ Ulll'. gru11p td plillS L1ci11g (Jilt~ .:.tuT! ;,111d tl1t._; 1t·1t1~li11111!t. ~l/1ll1p L1ci11g tli1· tJt!w1, die gl'rwr;d nde tl1,tt .id1u111i1q:, p.trccl.·J ill tnH: u\\'1h·r:,hip 11ll·rg1: . ..;n as to co11sl1l11l1_: util)· """ lul w;i:, lwld 11,<1 II! lw "l'l'l1v,,l,k, ,i11cc: ii w11uld rcq11i1c ,l ')Jt,11111-d li11di11g i/Ld llit::,c I\VU lo!) wc1c !iltt·11dcil tu lonu UIH' e.\t c:plHJti;d!y lu111~, JJd1rti\\. plu! .11HI \\·oul(I 11l'. 111 l!1Ld 11! till' /.,Li 11,;il c,1,·I, l1,111h """ d1il1·,c11! :,!11•,·I. \V!ii!L: tl1L: crn11l i11 """ c;1•,,· ,,l,u 11:k11,:il 111 1l11: (,11'1 tlut ti,,, lw11 lots were ,1t• .. quJ1·1:d .il dil!crt'lll ti1nt·:1, !Iii:. Lw! dues 110! SL't:111 1_:~,sc1itial lo ll1e dt•!cn11i11,!11u11.7 "J\11,•t,!-'.. wil!t /rc111!.1ge 1J11 ,c,t·p;tr:!lc ptd,lic !>lrci·!s ;ir" •,1·1;,11,1!c ;u1tl ,l,.,111wl pl<lls wl,c,c lli<'y :,11!,,,!;11111,,lly 11,et:t 11,,; d,·p!I, cl,,11,1, 1,·risl1,·,, 11I ilw ,11,•,1 ,1:, ii li;1•, d,·v,·l,,ped, nolw11l1· ~l~t1id1111~ tlw1r cu1111lHlll ltH;I t'IH.'f(!,11..·l111h·1it u! .t :,Ll!il.',l.'>t'. ;1L,111t!iJJ1l!Jt·J1I ui Stich :,i'JLU.t!1t111.u .i11d ft';tl aHd a u11c •t lt!'ll!1.tH '.'. Uo,Hd 1if .\dpn!H1nll, ;l/J N / Stqwi Ui•I, I/ l ! /'!..., iU'2 .'\.(2d '/:3 ( l'.L'U), , I. Vdl.ti'.I' nJ Ni: .. .i qHu;;11,· \!. 1\lc!,\i·l!, ,rJ:'.1 l\l1·d ~d IU/J'.), 21i7 N.\' S ~d ;),')) ( J(JIJ/-1), ,dl'd :1:! ,\ 11:1.d lll~)'l, ·w.1 N.Y.")~~d •Ht')! !'.iti'.J) '.·in: ,d'>u Cu1•,11111 v ( :1,n·, 1, I /!l .\ :'d ~:/l/ t t '.1n111 I 'JJJ J l fi '.:i(T ('.Ii, 1Jd1d t, Villae,: ol (\/1:,'>Cljl!lJglll' \' f\L-J.\1•ll, N. ·I ~Llj!t,l, D1·l.1w,li1'. l\f1d!.i11,l C111p. v. I11,·<J,1i.11,,kd VdLq.z,·, 7u J\L~1·. :.!d 1:1:1, ,1:):1 N.r.~.:!il uq 1 ( 1~,/.1 ), .,!f'd :Jb:l NY.') :!d .1'/::l { J!if.il I :\l,l! t,1 lli ,dty' C:utp. V. Sd1clLll!'ilHnt1, N Y.1../., /'d.t!l!J ~s. !!J(1{), ell 1~l; l\l.1\(1') u/ .'..W,l\'ullt' \. Vu!:., ._l l \.] )./1 I '.Jli!l, JI l i'J. Y.::i: '.~d \J Iii ( [ \),7()). IJ ~;ll.1L:11 \. I :h,1\v, .1\J ,\!1,('. ~.! J(l'.J!l, "JOI i\/.Y.S:ld !:U ( l!Jli!J), ciliog ,l Hl!!ll~ 1 ~ :l2.06 SUBSTANUAJW LOTS 32-17 ll11t see l/e/11/uc/.. J),•t,i:lu1,11wll/ Curp. t.. ;\,fcCuire• in ½liich the ,·,J11rt, while in ,.,fJ,·cl d<'11ying tl,al there wns a "rule" with respect lu kick lo li,1L:k Juts, lia,ed its co11clusio11 upon the sallle factors. "The me, e fad tl1at tl,e SLtl1Jt:ct parcel is contiguo11s with another, e,H,1111t111ly owned does not effect a merger of the two parcel,;. Nor, fur lhal matter, does the mere fact that the parcels are c1n1tig11ous only iu the rear and front on sep­ arate slreets ( as here) preclude a merger. Each case must lie decided upon ils own peculiar facts. ln the insl,lllt case the alllllling parcels arc approximately 50' x 100' and 152' x 551' respeclively. Tl,e properties were sepnrately acquired and appear tu have never bceJJ used in conjum:tion with one another. tvfor,,ovcr, from their relative positions it appears lhal 011c dues not materially enhance lhe value or 11lility of the other. l l also appears thal the sm,dler parcel ( lhe 011c for which the variance was sought) substa11tially conforms to lhi: dcplh char.<duislics of the 11dghborhood and that the area in genernl is cu1nposed of liack-to-back lots, l(JO' <l_ecp and fronting 011 separnte street,." 10 Lols collligu,rns fur a distance of 105 foet, but related to each otl,er in such fashio11 as tu forJll an L shape, held not to n<ljoin each other within proviso in exemption clause relating to owner­ ship of "adjoinmg la11d." 11 The question of wl,ether the owner of the lot claimed to be IJL:r uf 111otion le·nu d,·cis,iom, u111l:'porte<l except io the New York Law Journal, lo the si1111e t'ffl·d, io all of wliid1 the l'Ol1rt c·111phasi:wd the pattern of buck to h,1ck lot:. 011 the l1lo('k. "l).iacl'ls with frontage on separate public streets arc .~ep;ir.ilc a11d dbti11L'I pJ1;b \vlien: dwy ~11hst11tially mct'l the <lc::pth cha1ucteristics of tlic a1e,1 as it has den·lopt'<l, 11ot withsta11di11g their common ownership and 11:M co11tig1nl}1 ." :JOI N.Y.S,2d ,it HJ7. And see 1\ua Hmn~, Inc. v. Volz, 44 Misc. 2d 275, 25:.l N,Y.S.2d ,58,, ( JUG•I ). o :JS A.D.2d 5117, :JlJ N.Y.S.2d li08 ( J\J7U). 10 Jl:3 N.Y.S,2d al GOD-· It) (t·111phasis adJcd), And see Ilatfield v, Kempner, :J5 A.D.2d !010, :]18 N.Y.S.2d 75·! ( Hl70). in which it was held !hat inheritance by wife ( O\-\'Hcr of s1d1.\Lt11d,11d lot) of IH1slrn11d's b,H:k to Lack substundarJ lot did uot dlt:d a lllcrgcr, 1111d tlie co11vcyauce of liusbaud's lot to cluldrcH four montbs alt t.!f ac<111isit i1111 c.:oiild 11ut !1'.ad t1l cone! us ion ti 1,1t substandard condition of rcn1,ll11i11g lot fl'!l11lted f1tun wife\ decision to subdivide her property, But see Ch,1.":111,tl v. Sillicr.,ki11, ii A.tJ.2d 872, t77 N.Y.S.2J 620 ( HJ58), aff'J 6 N.Y.S.2d Bir/, 15!J N.E.2d {;8•1, !88 N.Y.S.2d 194 ( !USU). where !he lots were back to b,lck, l111t " subdl\·i\iou l'.Ullt r,try tu au e>.prcs!> pwv1sio11 of the ordin,111cc was held tu suppod the <lt.:1ii,il of a vMiaoce, ' l Bh,c Hidgc C,irdc11s, l11c. v. Oswald, +1 A.D.2d 570, 353 N.Y.S.2d 55 ( JU71). :r:!l'i 1'111•: l.,\\V (II, /<lNINC .\NI) l'l,:\NNINC 3 :l:UJ7 ,,,1,,,l,111tL11d I,,.,, ,11/li,·i,·111 ;icld,1i"11al L"'d ,1vail,il,lc: 111 IH: joi11l'd Li tlH· l()r!tt('! tu 1iwcl !llf'. n·1p1irc11w1Jts u! tlic urcli11,t1wc d1:1H:l1lls "i"J" ti," lypc.: ,111d ,li:11 a,·l,·1 i-;!1,:0 ol sucl, ,11IJ1Ji11i11g land. \\'lwrc 1111' :idi"i"""'. L111d i·, i11 ,1 .!till'.lc·11t!r l'i:ts,di,,d ,li,1,i,:I, ii 11:1, l,,..,,1 !1,·I,! 111;,I !11,· p111vi·,11 lli 111,· cxt'111plill11 in L11•i,r "I ilw s,di,t;111d :u1! lt)l 1l1w\ 11ul C<Hllt'. iidcJ upcr.1!HH1.1 ~ :'i :l:'.,07 Ordi11.,11ce l'rnvi:,i,111, as tu l\lcrger or ~lam1er o! Subdivi•}iun U,11, l, .. vi111~ a ;1,l"1a,.,L,rd l.,1 i11 si11glc :111tl ·,cp,t1·a(e alld il,m c11l11i<-d lu a );c11lcl11,g pnlllil Ill p,·,11111 1hr; use tlicreu!, llldf ;tup1irc <11! <1dj1J11111t1!, Jldl"L"t•l •;1tlr,1·q1w1i! !u tl1c 1~lfectiv1· d.tle .,J 1111· llrd111,111ve l,y \1 l,wl, 1111, l,ll wa,, 111,1,ll' •,11li,,1;111dard, "' th:11 .t'. ,l 11::.til!, tlJt• 1.'1J11dJJ1wd lu!', \\'(Hild cq11.d ur t'"-l'l'.l:d !he 111!!1i11111t11 :11t:.t'. T;i uukc c·l1·:tr !lie 11dc1d 1!1al ,1~ ;1l!d wl1e11 a lul i:~ c:q111IJ!(; (Jr L'lllt/(Jflll!ltJ~ (d !hi' 1·c1~11L111u11, it Jll!l'il do S{J, S(l!l\n llril111,111t·,·, jlllll'id,, 111,11 1,p1l11 :1,·q11i,ilill11 ul ;11ltl1ti,m:1I laml, :, 111n1;n 1, all,·c:lcd lwtw1'L'II tl1:il a11tl 1111· ,11l1•;!;t11.lard lu( 1111:11 uwiH·d) uiH.! 1witl1cJ p,11t·c! !lid)' li(' UH1sidt:red tl1t.>rc;1flt:r it.':i all i11t!J .. vi,!11,il l,1iil,h!,!e ill! .',11,:I, prnvi,i11,1 11:1,; !Jt·t·JI l'1Jl11:ld as a prup,·1 cu·Jt·i~c 11! th(; :t.1!J1111g puwt:r, a11d it b 111Jl .id1iliili'Y or t11111·;1:iu11- ,1[,lc, lur a l,";11d ul "l'fl•::tls lu dc:11y a vdJJ;1,1,c: for lit,, urigi1ial .,1, 1,.,Lll II L1rd lut. 1 I i\ .i],;11 Cllfil111t111 lu1 Ila~ 1Hdi11,11H.:e lu ::iLtlt· th;\! 11u t:Xb!jng lot ,l1,1ll he: Std1tlividt'd i11 ,111·!1 :1 111,111111·r tlt:1L i,11111:r the p:1rt re111:1i11- i11g !lr tl1<: porltii11 cu11vi·y1:1I .',hall Ile \Vtlltlt, (Jf frt111!11gt:.2 a~ lo ;u 1~i.l, 111 ,;.wh nl il1n1: ,il1,a1ioJ1s, ilw prup1•11y ll\\'111:1 had il willii11 Iii, p111vn lu i:1J111',11111, ,111tl 11,c 1igli1 tu a11 c.\1:111ptiu11, wlwtl,1:r p1uvi,l<:d lir urtl1J1,111c:e "1 "I'"" c·1Jmlil1i!H1J1:1! g1u111Hls, i, fur­ L:ikd j l'.1. Cic.iJJtl'! \, Y(Hllii~. Iii /\11.•,l'. ~d tJlU, UH f\J.Y,'),~d j(J ( ]!l:')UJ. 1 l·.i1,iud,1 v :;dwt'j.dllll, :21 .·\ IJ'.'.t! /lll!, :!.SO N.Y.~J.:2,l \L'./l { JlJ(j·I), A pv1:,n11 li.i.\ilig ,1 C1J11l1.td w1lh t·<1d1 ,ii !lw uWJH't.', o/ two ddJ111011q; ph!!,, thu::. IH"ing llH'. nJ<1!!,1LJc lJ\\llL'f dw11·n!, 11,1', lwl.l f1, 11.111· lw!d 1111' l\\tl 1,lul<, Ill t·u1111nun 11wn,:1- ::.l1111 111 ilu1t,111 1!1·,dty Co1p \'. YuH111;, !Ii l\!1.11·. Zd l lH, !ti:~ f\/.Y.S.:!.d l'.lZ ( I\J:)~}). ''C11n:,tJ!L1t1uH,d 11ght'.l ,Ill' l1(d 11d,!H/(cd 11;1, d1:,v1JJ01J1d!1n!~ [JdWL'('ll ow11c11 who ha11e ,11!Jll!Hl11g L11n! ,l111l tl1u·,l: wli.; dii nnt" FJH,1 ll111nn, lr1c. v. Hn-kd, 21 t\11.~l' '2.d 11:~:1, /j:2,S -:2.U, 20-1 N.\'.S.'..:d oU, /'.J l l~JLO). :J .'.--iC'c, t·.g., i'.lu~awi!l \'. S1l!i(·1:,tv111, 11 A.1).2d h'/'.2, l'U N.Y.S :!d (i:20 ( lD511), ull'd !WJ N<Y S.:!.d l:l•I, lt)U t,).t<.:!.d hid, tl N.Y.~d H07 ( Eti!J). J h·11J111.111 \'. \Vl:i~:.t.:r, :1 :\.1).2.d Ii'/ I, !till N.\',;j :!d 5rr/ ( J!):l'/); (:rilli11 v, ~ :l2.08 SUBSTANIJAIUJ LOTS 32-19 v\lhcrc the record ow11cr of unc of two contiguous lots is cmc spouse and the other lot is acquired l,y both husba1Hl and wife as lellants liy the e11tirety, it can11ot be said that tlw lots are in um1rn011 ownership, si11ce the incidents of ownership of a11 estate by the entirety aw far different tha11 when property is owned by an individual.4 The mere fad that a husband fimmced the purchase Ly his wife of a 1101,confonning lul almost simultaneously with his acquisition ol a contiguous cunfonning lot from a different grantor, was held uot lo rcs1ill i11 a 111crgcr.° ti '.12,08 Title Through Tax Foreclosure Pmch:1se tl11011gh a tax foreclosure of a lot which onee con­ lornwd tu lhe regulaii,llls, but no lunger does aml is presently 111 si11glc, a11d separate uw1wrship, ill no way affects tl1e right of its uwm:r tu l,uild tlicrem1. "A pmchascr wlio takes title to real estate through a tax title af'quires 110 better Litle lhau the priur owuer had; conversely, he d"es not acquire a lesser title thau the prior owner had." 1 · lkvill1·, J-19 N.Y.S.2d 31~ ( JU50), F111a l!.111,c•.,, hie, v. Young, 177 N Y,S 2d 535, 1-l /\lisc. 2d 57fl ( tu58 J, ,dl'd 7 A.D.2d 8M, lfJ2 N.Y,S,2d 300 ( 1~5\J ), alf'd 7 N.Y,2d 8-15, 16-1 NY.2d 81,0, HJ(; N.Y.S.2d 085 ( tu5!J). 4 IJ,11l,a1a 110111n, l11c, v, M1d1adi.s, l,l Mi,c. 2d 620, 178 N.Y,S.2d 543 ( 1958); Edi., Ci,sln111 !Ji,il,kis, J11L·. v, Ynung, 16 ~li.,c. 2d 376, 181 N.Y.S.2d 400 ( 1958). ti Stcmle, v. Cw111111•Hl111gcr, 50 Misc, 2d 565, 2(;H N.Y.S.2d 865 ( HJ6U), 1 ll111ldc,s' S«pply Ix Luuihe, Co, v, Village uf llillsiJc, !GB N.E.2d 801, 803 (Ill.App. t0UU). t\11d ~ce Misdtia,a v. Board of AJjust111cnt, 77 N.J. Super. 288 ( J UU2), iu whu.:li !111• co11d held that the ~tatw, of an owner of ,t tax title was li.H·d ou the dak he )H11clt,L.\ed a tax ~<dl• ccrtiJknlc even thuugb tl,c judgment lu1cdlbiJJg tlit· la,, lieu h,1d nol been pcrfocll'd. The court !'.laid that a purchaser (Jf a t,1x :..de ceitilii:alc 1t·c1•1ved au intcn:!it in lhc lanJ, lhough not a perfe<:ted !ilk, ,,ll(l, within the uH1kAl of dw fuds in the case, plainlills 1\!i purchasers of a ldX l1tle Cl'llilicale L,ld t1w !iilllh: !>lalll.!:i ii!) if tliey 11ad uu out1igl1t fee to the land; ib1:refore, the L0111ng a1JLL'1Hlm1:11l shoulJ not he appliL--J retruauivdy to cause lhv111 umhic cco11oinic lu1d . .,J11p; to hold olhcrwi.'it\ would render the:: parL·el u~eless. Tlie cu1nt lidd, ftill!wr, lli,Lt cvl'n were the plaintiff!) <lcena·d to have purcha~ed tlu; JHOtWrty only di 1111: Liter IIHH' whl'n the lorcclo:,11rc took place, the reasoning .'>d forth in Arduliuo v. Hu,trd of AJJ11sluwnt, 2-1 N.J, H4 ( H)57 ), would entitle tlu:111 tu a vari;11we ln·C.ill.'.>l~ lhcy dealt 111 good faith desptle k111>wledgc of the Ltmiug n.:.1lrid1011s wlil'n the)' "pu1cha,-,cd" the p1operty, In Fiua Ho111cs, Inc. v, Tl1rn11p:.on, 2.2U N,Y.S.2d 013 ( H)ti2L u.o.r., the court hdd that the fact that llic owner's gr.intor acquired title frolll the county treasurer after a lax sale <lid 11ut preV(•nt it f1u111 ,l::..:.i:itiug the same right tu build lliat the owucr of the prop• c1ly lJL•fu1c the ta>. .:.iilt! pm~e:,:,cd. Aud sec Calllbcreri v. Michaelis, 20 Mbc, 2d I ID, HJ2 N.Y,S.2d 801 ( IDMJJ, ,,u<l lmcc v. Kramer, 20 Misc, 2d ·132, l\JB N,Y,S,2d ~:J:.! ( 1D5D). in eal'h uf whid1 H w;1s hdd that the fact that the cou11ly from which :l:2.:!0 Till•: U,\V ()I,' 1JJ1\liNC AND l'l . .\!\;NINC s :12.os 111 C:u111!,u11:ri u .. \/ic/1,11'1is 2 the cuml J,,,Jd 111«1 whcr,· llw t1J11Jily ul,1.,11«:d l.1\ till,: t,, «dj111J1i11g 1111-; l,d,,,,, ,,11,·cc,;,,iv,· ,11ili­ u:11li'1'.', rcqt1ir111g dr1'd.':1 td' ·1,()()(l <l!H.! (),000 '.:>(JH.i1c· !ct·l fur J't•'.1ide11ce 1Jlt .'> \\Ttt· p,t')'.}c~d, tl11: 1·1n1H!y \\'.ts 11ot rt·q11iH·il !u r,·;c\.1c111lde the pluh {/) ( UHfun11 !u ',1!('!1 ill lli!l;t)l!T'> l>t·(111 L: di<ipt)·)ittg ,,r I lu.: prnp .. t·i !y, i111d rJ111· wl11.1 !1dd p1ircl1:1::.l'd a lu! 1·1Jt1LtiHl!!)!, :1,0·10 .')q11;trt: 1,·,•l l1,J111 11«· s111T1·,,-,,,, i11 i1t11·1t:sl lu 11,,, p11rvlusn fro1J1 1!11· cu1JJ1!;/ \\';L-i c11!i!lt·d 111 ;111 .1rea v,1riiltict· lo p(·ru1il ils u~e. Tlw ciittri!y, !1a\'llJ.1{ !)t:<~11 ccl111pdlc1I to ;_tc:qtiire !lie p,1t·u.ds, \va.s llol 1cq111r1·<! !o !'(llif1JJ111 {!1 !IH: 1i11i;lt·, :,t·p<1r;1le O\\'Jt1·r::.hip provi:-,iun l'claf111g lu 111erger. 1\111 wlu.·1c: 11,., .',«l1Sta11d,11d ,,izcd 1,,1 ;ind 111,· adjui11iug wlitt·!t ld,1 1y!lt('I \'(Hl/u1111c·tl td tlic 11'qu1ri·1l!c11l'i tl! tlic on.li11;i111·e, li,11.! !Jl,'.t:11 ill ct1111u11i11 11\\ 111·1:-,l1i1), tl1e ldA :1,dc pur,·lid~l! :11HI res~de oi 11,c ,1111· ( ,,1tl,s1«11,!,11dJ l«I I,)' tl1c nl(<t<ly di,I 111Jl nc,de the :.!;1!11:i ol siHgll; and :Jt·p,1!'.ilt· (J\\'11t·1.'ll1ip 1qHHl 1! :t11d LT(:atcd tw Ill:\\' :!.iJJJill/~ 1iglit::, i11 !lit'. !Jill( l1,1c,1·1.:i \Vl1c1" lite 1111cslllJII ,11 ts:,1w w,1, whL·lli,·r" !ul l1,1d l,ee,1 ,ul,­ di v1t.lnl i1d1J ! \VO ~,1il 1·)!d11t Ltrt I !1 !I:; i11 vi1il;i I iu11 1 i( ! lie uri !i11a11ct\ tht'. dn·,! (·r1:a[i1q~ !It{.'.!\\'() l1JI:. /Ji·t11v, t')d'l'1dcd .till! r,·t·tlJdcLI llllly :tiler 1!11· ell,·, live ,l,1/1· 111,,i,·ul, it 11,1s lll·l,I 111,11 1!11· l.11,,1<,I t:<J«ltl !i11d lrlHII !tTi!t1l:1 i11 !lie l!t~«'(l, ,1·; !o ;1~,:.1t111p{J1;11 ]1y !l1t: gr;t11!ce uf ,dl il:,~,t'';',J1w11h ;u1d l.t\1··,, ·,l1uT, prij/r Ii; ilil: 1·IL•1·1ivc dat1· .11a_l ;1 1,·lli'I i1<J<1J 111,: L',1,1111,,1·-. 1lw11 ,1/i11(11i:y 1)1,11 1111· 1J111pi,rl)' knl lwi'tt JH11t:h,hcd l!JH!vr ,1 :iidy 11Hn1t!1 lll.',L1ll1nt"1it l·(11Jlr,ll'! 1-:nte1t'd i11!n pr1tir !11 'it1L·f1 ,t11l!'1Jl!11w1Jt, t!ic adj()i11i111~ lot \\'d'> IH.d ill {'llllllllilll ow1wL·il1ip wi!!1 ilw ;tp1Jl1t ,11d ·, l(i( c1! .c.1ll'l1 li111c. ·1111• ,,11111 1«,lil 111.11 ti,,· 11,·,·d ,111<1 l,,11,·1 c1111•;lil,1t,·d lite ki11d ol l~Vil!c11u; 1i11 wliiL"l1 lt'.\Jl1J11,,1l1lt: jH•1c,u11s arc .1/.'t 11111.c,{!lllH:<l tu rely dlld, Ill ,,_i,,1111: tl,.,1 n·i,l,·11,·i: i,1ul,;1li\ls 1:llnt ;i11,I 11dcrrittf': frn111 ii ilia! !!1L· c<Ht\1'y,111c1· !u !lit' uf 1l1c ,J1d1J1,111c,·, i11 111:11 11,, l1.1d 11w11cr,,ltip from .tl! .1ppl1c,lld f,;1 ;1 ;,111111 1~ \.111.ttlL'(' !1,1d .1«111111·d !id,· ,1,, o1 H':dd! td a lin !)<1k Ii.id ,11·,o 1,\\JH d ,HIJ.,1111J1,1; 1.,(\ d1\I 11u! 1!t·1iJl\c 1111 ,qi[d11_.inl':, l.t!HI o! i111n1unil)' !(1J1n Iii,~ .1l1',1 1,·q1,111·1n,111,; 11)11,11 JI ulll!'l•,','J>c 11-1',,,'','>t'd 111-.,d,11 .t.', ll11· tll11t·l1.l.">l'l ,il ,l l.1.\. :,,iii-1·, uJHit•1111d, lw h d,1·1111·t! 111 pu·,,',1.'.\ tlw .')d1111· 11,1(lit,, d) the in,ll\Hhi.d owiw1:, 1il d1t• 11·,t,r·,lJ\'c !1,t) l1,t1l L,·lilll' !L,• ,11111d; ,H(p111nl tlwDJ, tlu: ,·u11nty lit·1n~: !1t·,dr·d 1110 1,·):,, ,\~ ,1 ,·1J1u!i1d !1110!11',\1 1•.li1d1 !11<· 11glll, ul lhi· \'.11in11.) U\\'11c1:-. JJ,L)'d-d, :: t:.tu,L.11t·11 v. i\lH h;wl1\, N. l •,1q11.t. :\ud ',CL' J.'~·l,!111.tn v. ( ;,111111Jl•1d1111;e1, ~(l l\li·,c. '.!ii '..::'.1, 2LJ N.\' :; :2.! WI ( JU/)0/. J 1.1'\,tll \'. \l,d,., !)'/ ~.Ii:,,· :!,d !llli, J:'..l /\).~' l; ~d tl!Jt) ( I\J'/1 .l. S :J2.09 SUBSTANDARD LOTS 32-21 date of hi, cu1tlract, and i11 fiudi11g that the subject parc;el was i11 si11gle aud separate'owuership in W:30, the board did 1101 aet arhitrarily.4 9 32.09 Helicf Through Grant of Variance As was slated iu a previous portion of this chapter, the cus­ tomary method of seeking relief from a denial of a permit on the gru,md that the lot sought to be used is nonc:onformiug in respect tu area, width, or frontage is tu seek a variance. 1 Tlte right lo a variauce has, iu some <.:ases, been held to "run with the land" so tltat the present owner of a substanard plot has the same right lu a variance as his imrneLliate grantor.2 Other comls, however, have held that each case must be considered on ils uwn facts, there !wing no right to a permit merely lwcause·a prl'd(secssur in lille had such right.3 I l is not possible tu L1y down hard aud fast rnles applicable to Lhe lllany varied fad ,ilualious which have come before the courts ill sit11ations iuvolving s11bstandard lots. !vlost of the cases li,ive arisen 011 appe,1l s f101ll decisions of boards of appeal or adjust- ·• l',,pp,dardo 1·. ~lil'i,;wli,, 2H Mi,e. 2d 808, 21 l N.Y.S.2d ~55 ( l9lll ). 1 Sel: § 32.05 :;11pra. \Vhilc a dcdaratory i11dgment udion to dedare lhe restric­ tio1t 11ncumtit11l1011al li,1s IJct'H U\cd ( ef. ju11;\r Con~lr. Cu. v. Town Bd., 57 Misc. ~,I 727, 2!l:J N.Y.S.2d 7'27, W:J N,Y.S.2d 358 ( 1%8): l\1vicre v, Tow11 of llemp­ '"""d, .IIJ Misc. 2d 15~, ~·12 l~.Y.S.2d 770 ( Wu:J); ll)'mliuk v. City of Chicngo, ~HM N.E 2d O ( JII. App. IU7:3)) then: i!. a right, under 111osl statutes, to apply for a vari.mcc of the reguliit1un, awJ the J;tflger eAi~t.s that the comt will sustain a ddi:me pul furw;.ird i11 l11l' dn-1.uatory judgnwnt ,1ctiou that the ad111inislrn.tive 11·111cdy of Ilic gn111t ul a \1aria11L·c has uot first bet·n sought a11d denied. See Ch. :15 1nl1a. 111 Tow11 of Sui fs1dc v. A11drt~ws, l~t1 So. 2d 207 ( Fla. App. l~)(jfj ), pluintiff ~t1l'd to cnjDin tlic c11forci:1nt·11t nf the regulation, hut oHly ufter u variance had lwc11 denied. Vad,rnv1·;; h,al bet•n de!llc<l, as \veil, in Dittmer v. Epslein, 3,i A,D.2d i,75, JIU N.Y.S.2,I 5-IIJ ( IU70), a11J Man<lalJy Cou,lr. Co. v. Ecclesi<HJ, U A.D.2d fl I 8, HJS N. Y.S.2d H·J ( HJ[:j~}), before the action in each for <ledaralory judgrncnt waci L'1111HHt:11cctl. B11l .St't' Can1,1l lkalty, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 33 A.U.2d 503, JOli N.Y,S.2d ·W2 ( IfJGU), with re:.ped lo L'ircu111starn.:cs in whic.:11 this defense will 1111! he su::ot,1iued. 'Vi-lal llldg. Cu1p. v. licclcston, 7 A.D.2d 737, 180 N.Y.S.2<l 652 ( rn59); IJ" Moss v. Bmoogl, ol Watcho11g, 137 N.J.L. 50J ( l\J.18); llmkc v. Lee, 14 N.J. Snpt:r. 188 ( l!J51 ). Aud sec CriHin Coustr. Corp. v. Board of Adjustment, B:.i N.J. Silpcr. •172, 205 A.2d .11] ( Hm--t); F111a Ilrnues, Im.', v. Thon1pso11, 226 N.Y.S.2d IHJ ( IU62); Ca,.ibcrcri v. Michaeli.,, 20 ~lisc. 2d 119, HJ2 N.Y.S.2d 861 (Hl5U); lrncc v. Krn,.,er, 20 ~lisc. 2d 432, WH N.Y.S,2J 532 (J959). 3 :\_rdoliuo v, Boa1d uf ,\dJ11!.tnumt, 2-1 N.J. H4 ( l!:)57); Erming v. Jleathcott, tl:l N. W.2<l 250 ( ~lid1. ); S111iil1 v. l'a,J11in, 77 N,J, Super. 138, 185 A.2d 673 ( Wli~). :t?-:!:.'. Tl! L:\\V (l!: './1H✓IN1.: .\NI) !'I .. H✓'-/1:\/C !:j :t!..IHJ llwtd c!1·11; IH)!. varl:H\l'l:~. 'i'lw !'/llll!Hls ul dc11i,d, a'. well) ilH~ loo 111t111t'Ji:l11 !!J 1.:;1!,rl,,i:,11t·. I!] ),ppz1t!unity 111 .1,_,;cl! or lo Pttrcl1.1'.le A.dditio11i1l ! ,and t \111• 1'11J11111l f11r d,·HLd, 11r,1!,1·d 1'vc:11 i11 tilt· ca·ii' u( ;t -.,11b~la11dard lut 111 1,11:1' d11d 'l!:)i.t1;1l1· tl\\'!Wt'.,!1ip, ii.; tl1d! 1!11'. .1pp\ic~11it l1~H! !t"lTl\·u1 ;1111! (i'JL"t"k 1 ! ,lll 1dl,·t· id ill! :1\l)(lil1lllg !Jl'(l\l!'.l ly (l\\'llet" r,J! till' pt1!1.kt,,c rd !Le 1111 'l'lw !\Ji·\\' \'(Hk c\l1t1l':> lt.t\T ltt·ltl ll1at !H) .id1111l!hl1.l!1vc lH1,1rd lidJ ,11\1111,1 !ly tu ,·u1J1JJ1'l ;1 \HO\h'.rl)' tl\Vlll'f tu •,1 !! 111•, p1(q11·dy tiJ .1 11c1.1'.,!t!H11 oi· lt1 u<;c !11·, 1(·J11•);il !o do ~1/J .t'.-i ;\ )_!,IUdl\d L11 ;\!1y it]iJi!it ;,lH1t1 !11: Hid)' ptl''.,('!!l ld Jl.4 '!'ll(' (',l! ly !',.Jt·\\1 J1'f)l'l_i' \ ,\',/", !ll-lll \il!lil:11"lJ ,ri L11l !tl Ltll'L' l',l.',t'.'•, tlw l'!i111 !-, ltil\1('. !1('!1 I l 11,1( i! !l1(: IJ1l;11-il f1·:wl1t 1 ll t!11· l'illlt_·ltt~>iu11 tl1,tl l'\'t:Jl !l11,1i,1:\1 11H: l1.lJ1!J11p !,1 1!w 1,w1H·1 1::. t !c,11, i!H· \'ilfi,uwt'. Cl!ll!l! lHlt lit· 1!,1:111l1·1l w1!lHH1! tL·t11111r·1i! !11 t\11• p11Ll11· g11.i1l l1tT~1lht' td ll1t' c·n·t :'1l11q:,!;1 ':illi:dl .'>iJ.i• 1i/ tlw ilw :q11illl .11!! 1 • p1up 1.'i!) \\ l11,·I , ilw c.\1:,\1·1w,: 1Jr Lu1d hcyu11,I it\•;1il,dd{· lnr lllll'l·Lase ~tl .i 11·d~;u11.t!,k pill.T 11ll,1!1J! p1·(1v't(!t· ot :,,dtdi111J, .i11d i11 '.-itt,·lt a 1·~t\c t!J1: liu,t11! ti1q,JJ1 !i.r;t1d ,I V.t1·i;1111 c n11tt!it1i1Hl:d tljH111 1]11; t1cq11i~i!id11 1d !!11· i1dliil1d11,d l.11u!.i:l ·I (,/,t,,L1., \' tl.i,ttd ul i\111w,d',, '/ \!1,1· ~~d '/Ii'!, ]!J! Y'>~'.d ·HU ( l\),'//), ll1.dJ,11,! !I, ,.i1 ·, 1111'. V ]'!u1,">k!, }1J ~,11·" ~.,I ·!·1'1, ]!{\! 1,: Y 'i ·__)_,\ ,-J.\li ( !)J~-,~J ,,·,· l\., ,.,1, \ l.ui,01 11, l!i! ul ,\Pl" <1h, .!,1i ,1, JI b !H, I (\J 11· S.~tl .SulJ i l'.Jo·/ l_ 11, ,,·1,i-li ila· i11.1p11ilJ iii tli,· .q,p(·!Li!1: 1!1'-l'd"l! ·.l.t!(·,i 111.1( .ti\ ol!t·1 tif I 11</;'i,!Hd lu IHl1t·h,1.,,· ,tl 1)1,· ,,11111· !Jill,' !\u· ,\J1d1.1,l ,111<1,1 ,!ill lHll jll)iily ,1 d,,11, "/ dH u1i1,t:\\l'n !El,tl!ILi!,,l \,.,/,11!\•' '!t\l<1llu,,·1I, ,11, ol\\llt'( i:-. !in· \tJ cL.il \,11!1 .J1;,i,11 1n !l1,· ,.d,· 111 !,1•, 1,1,i/1<'1ly ,,11,l ,,., tl1111L In· !l1.1\' 110! lie ton1- 1,1·l!~,l 1c1 ,, !! 111 ,1 11<·q•_LIHn ,d !Ii,· ii.1111 ,ii l",1111; ,l 11·,1,·,l io:lll' llll' IHHHHII}' ld Ji,( !utlll ,l,\l,·,l 1l.,i1 \1.L1·11· !lw p11q,, 11_1 ,\,I', !11.11L,·Ldil, v;1ll1u11l ,1 \.tlLl!lLl' ,d tl.1. 1,1 I! 1· .1·, ',\ 1!!1 iii,· , ,,I ld!,t,, ti:, 1,· t·,11, !'1' lH! , ,\Ii.! I l,11111 th.it tl1t' d1•1i1.1I 1,! ,\ 1..:11.111,1 !, iu1d1,,"l,d) 'ili,· \<Jt11l ul ,ljJJ!!'.tl, <1Ji11;Jl1·1l li1· ,I -~!JIil \UlL· u] ·I i,r r/1,-1n1nu1il1• ,l1,.-·1i!!tq~ l1J1 ilH' !l.1.,1;1, •,Ldt·d Ill tL,· 1!t\"><'llln1g ilflll!H,11 L,•l:,1\, !l 1! :1.,l \)(1!, f\') '_·.:,I'!'![) l·1ililll\l'J Iii /\!.Hidlill l,\Lllt·'-. V. S.lt.l'd, :\.I l ~'.,! ,';':!), \',:\ i'-l.l 'i<I r 1:i/ I 1, !'L\!!1 .. ·r •;, \,tel.t, -l'J .\ l).'.~d (illl, '.)70 \':, J:;/i i !'.ft:) l "(1\./]"1!11111• H1 iii( l.111. !l'lJilll,··, p.-l!l1.i1i1·1 Id c.1•1! lu .ill uli1;11111q~ L\111lin'.lll'1 .il .1 p111 i li\,·il !1y tl11 Lit!t-1 · (:,,1\dll \ !,1·111, 51 r\.\),:!ll :'J!J!J, 'J(f_) Y 7-l!i, 'l-!h ( l\fiti), 11 \'ii I\! Y.L I, ,\t11i! '.'I, l:1T/, ,d I, nil. U; d1Hl ;((' l\1k!11dJl' !>i-,t1IJ1Jlll !IJ\\Jl\ltqi, :L'.li (\!Jd1 ~l~, !t) i\l\\''.2.ll IT7 (UJ-l!J), tlil· ~,11,u: ('iii·,!. l!11l ·,l'(' ,;1(1\1111.111 \ i'.1!y td !Jt-c, l'!t111,·, It),\~,/ F.\!.d H'.2! ( !ll .\pp. !Ur l) 1 !1rddH1 14 ,t 1,11H111ll1lll .11,·,1 11",!11l'f1ti1l tJUl 1 ,JHli,1 ,1t.,1y 1J1 11111e.1:.,H1.ddl· wl« IC <J\\IJct·, 1u1,lil :,i•!I lit~ L,l ,d lv,t.,1· il, L't,·,! (u 111111, ld t11lJ.111t11q~ 11\\l\1~r). fl L 1y .. 1_ml I v '.1lit·11Lit1 'J l " I '.·1tqw1 :·/ti), ! JI) .\ .I,! ( ! '.J'-,!J), Sn11d1 \, 11,t,pllll, !\l :1 ')l1p1.i 0 IL1111iq:tL111 l :kn, l11v " !\!11111,·q1,d lid ol ;\,lp1.,li,w1d, :;~ ('JI. 2~. :2.•IJ ;\.;l,d t 1'.Jt!U) Th,· l·utlll :,l.ltn! di,d 111 tl1L' v:dLtd ll1,d k.,!JH'JJ,/d 1, S/11:111-111 CtllilLI l'<1n.,!1ur:d ,t:, h,dding 111.tl tl11• \\illuq~IH ·,:, 1d ,1H ,1dJ!l11111 11 ; u\~tu'f tu 1n11d1<1',1'. . I S :J2.0H SU BSTANDAHD LOTS 32-23 I lowevter, the Suprt:llle Court of New Jersey [_irought up sume "f I lw eollalernl problems which had led other jurisdictions to esd1ew sud, urndiliou, saying, .. The preceding liuy-or-sell disc·us,io11 has raised this ques­ ti,i1,: ff there is uo adjoilliug properly available for purchase or available at a fair price, or if the ullclersized-lot ow1wr does uot It ave sulficie11l ! u11ds to buy additiu11al land or feels that his lrnilding project does not warrant further expenditure, a11cl a variallee is dellied, is there uo remedy open to him? l lis prup,,rly ltavi,,g i>eell zoned into sterility, must he accept I 1,al state and eo11li1111e lo pay taxes lliereon ad i11fi11itu111? Th,, q1ll:,l1011s prnj<:d irnporla11l issues which our remand 111,d",s u1111eu.,ss;1ry lu decide now. Aecordiugly they are re­ scrvetl.11 7 f2l Clrnrncler of Neighborhood Aln,osl :it the same ti111e, the opinion of the supreme court in C:uu;;eoll v. /Jo,ml o/ t\r/1111/111e11/6 was rendered. ln this, the court· rcilurakd the rnle that the discretion of boards of adjustment to gr;111l a11 exceptio11 lo a lot which cannot conform as to minimum ar,·,1, side yarcls, and froid yards, is li111ited by the negative criteria sd forlh in the stal11le" that relief may not be granted uuless it ca11 !Ho do11e witho11l substantial detrimeut to the public good, and without sulJStanlially i111pairi11g the i11tent and purpose uf the z,,11i11g pla11. \Nlwre il,e Liuard finds that the variauee can be granl<'d will.out sulislc111I ial detriment lo the public goud, the q11e,,tio11 rem,1ins whctJ,..,,· e.\cqilioual and 1111due hardship WL)uld lw vio1tc:d 011 the owiier if !lie eiception or variauce were denic;d. JI a Linrling offer were niade to pay the lot owner the fair market value of his lot ( eve11 wl,cre proof showed there were many sub­ st.111danl lots iu single separate ownership, some developed and ollll,rs 11ot developed in plaintiff's area), then the board may, at its discretion, deny ll,e variance. If plaintiff refuses such a fair 1l1l: 1wtith11H·r','I 1u1de1c,izcd lut 111 a Llir price ( for e.\aJ11plt.~, at the front fool value of l'onlrnwing lots in the gvrn•1,d 1e~1denlial urea) eo1tld not be considc1cd, it is t1v1:1ndt·tl. The New York cowt in J\focchia o. Hvard uf Zo11i11g Apptals1 N. 4 !1Up1a, :-.tdted by w.ty uf didtHli tlut a boa1J of appeals could not compel an ow1u.:r to pur1.:lia.':ic a<lJitiuu,d laud. 1 ~.i:J A.2d al 238 . o 52 NJ. 212, 2-15 A.2d 7 ( JOG8). o l'urmer N.J. Stal. Ann.§ ,10,05-30\c), presently NJ, Slut. Ann.§ 40:550-70. :!~ :? ! Ill!•: I .. 1\V lil' '/ll'.\;J,',J1; ,\>✓Jl l'l .. \'-J,'<INC 9 :l:! .. 0:l ,ll!\! 11·,1,_,,1]!,tlJ!j· (J/!( I 1!11· !1!,,lJ\I 111,(\ I IJ!1l !1t1!i· 1!1,1t Iii'. l,t,1· l,111·,. -,!H11! ul 1!1(" 1·.\L1'.jJ!lt111,tl 1JI 1111(1111_' L.ir( i '.\lij( It r,·11,·I !11 •,t1t·!1 ·,il1u!i1J11, ,1!1 1dJ\ Hl\L', CtJtdlwJ ,111:,1;:, IJt'.l\\'t'cl! tlw pt1lil11· 11dr•11··,t lt'!J11 ·,1·1d(·1l !iy !he /.1111111.1'. 11'>,!1i1·lio11 ;.uHI Ilic 1i1J 1/,!/1: pr1;pl·1!J 111 1 !!!\ id tlH· lJ\\·JwJ !! i1t liw j11d_l!,lllt·1!1 id :!1i· !lu.111! !ii ,\dju·,!1111·11( ilw i1t1Llflllltt11! i1ilt'11",l l11 lH· 'it'f\1 t·d 1-. t!w k1111H)1ll!Hi•; !)l1y -.1t·;1! d(•\'cl1J!H1w11! iii !IH: L'll!!llllllllily, ,1 !tc i I !tot! i11i1·11 ,,1 (·,111 l·1i' s,1_·1 \ t·(I ! I 11 u11!!,l1 ! 111 ! ( {J!!lJ1c111,1t 1,)11 !l) !!w litHdl!w1w1, !IH·11 1[ 111!1:,!it w,·11 !ic !"1 ,1.,ri11,1l1l1· fur tl1e Hti,1nl 111 Ji11d tl1.il 1tw!1 tl!!duc· tH t'\('t•1iti1i11;tl l1<11tlJ11!1 ,l'l \\/(Hild W,ll'· l".l!!f d \',[! l,tlll"C ll] ,;JH'{'l,i! ('.\C,'.[>(HJfl Ji.Hi 111d lH'l'll (Jll,1\\'11." !O !'!JHli11g tlw 11'l(l!1! !1h1dli1·H'1l! !111 ih l't,11',i1li·1,1!HJ11 ul wl1t•t!1l·t tlw t',1.t11t u! ,1 \,11L1!H 1 \\1HiL! 1 iHil!!t·I \\'Jllt 1!1(· lll'_!!,ativi: cnt,·ri,t ul t!L' tlJdtu,HH i·, !lw 1·111111 11·Jl1,11J1!cil !111· 111,tl!t;r !U !lw !HJ.tHI ul ;1i!p1:,t11w11! tu 1k!(·111d11i· Tl1c 111t11dH·r 1il 1·1p1;111J ::i1d1'.Li11(L11l! l11h 111 Ilic .irc.t, ( :') Till' pl11 ,1, ;ii , ,,11,!it1<1t,c, r,·Li1111t:, 111 d,·1Tl"Jl"d """ 1111· 1ii,\'1..'l1J111·tl 111t,\1t·111 iii !l1,: ,villi ·11 11()'.1:,t!)lc rcsillt:11!1,11 <lii'.,l \\ l1H·l1 uuv 1J'd'ltH1.il)l_) lw.ti (JtJ pL1i1J\i!I'~ rig!tt lu ,111 t .\1·1·plir111, \1111!(-r d1,· 1;11ivi:,uJ1t•, 1d ilH· j)rdi11.11tl'l') tJr ;J \-'ll IL!! H t', 1.:.1) \\'l11,1!1l'I !111 ,,/1,,, """I,· 111111, I !,l' it't "" ol pc1y111t·1,1 1r·.t:,<J\1.tldt·, ;111tl \\'IH·ll11·i d 11·p11",1·11!:, ll1L: l.iir l!Ltrkt:t \:1!11t· (ii i1 lid sJI t:1,ti ·,1'./.1· u11 w!11t·!1 ;1 i1(J1111: coultl lie !Jt1d1, ,1.-,itl1 1L 1w111,!l (1, liiti\d, 1 t:'.,('! ,·ill1!, p1ri~d1L·lirn1 !u!' !111!l1t:1 1,·\·11·w ii! !,:, !-;_ It'. ) i1 1,11 I!',; i !1 'J 'J 'i !( ll I ii I Sl!( ·!1 j t ll I! ll'l ,,\Jli·r r,·l1t'<1l"i11,1:,, !lw ,,.:,ttL(lH'l: \Vd:, .1!!,ai11 tlt·111!'(l !iy !lie l1u;1rd (JJ .1dp1,)l11h·111 :111tl 1111· (',t'i1' \\;i~, :11!,,1iH p11··)t'1t!L·d !u the :i11p1l't1w (_'i1111! ilJHH1 ilH: 11Tt,1r! !11.1i!1· !wl,iw.11 tl!U!lf, ii!!wr 111,dlt.'i'.S, lfu• /'lili!'l ·,Lt!t·d tl1cd !I! d1·(1'!ll!!l1ll !llt: l'H\'iltllilll( lt!.d ;1rc;1 lu ht: ·1it1:)1d(·1t·Jl L\1 1!11' IJt1,11t!, 1! •,l1utt!il li.tvc c,11hHli·rl:d ,1 jl!)j)!!l,ti('II t1·:,1il('ldLd .ill',I 111-,! ! !t 1 t'( ,ll'ltJ:,', llt(' L:iy l1i1.S!\I ()!I \\L11_•!j !1l.1i111!1/',) jllll1J(·Jl) \\d', ',lll1,it1·(I, wlicit' ll!•J'.,! llr tlii'. IHl/1!('.'> \\·(·r1_'. lit1ill 1111 !u!'i ti!(' ,,,lJlH· ·,i1,t· ,1·, pL1i1d1fl ·i, \\'l!L·1e 1li1:. ~t·c!H111 \\'.l', 111 !!!l! V!t'\\ t)I 111·, 1i1\J1w1r.\, :1w! p!Hdi1_1;r.1pli•, :,liuwi·d tLc l\\'() 1 o 'J:! N ! ,Li :::!..'i. 1 1 ,'J-1 ,d l.!:J, '.!_."-,.1 .\ :'.,I .t! .'i(li) !i :.I2,0:l SU HST,\ N DAHD LOTS 32-25 si·1 IIIJ11> as very du,e tu c.i,li olhi:r. Add11Jg u1,i: 111ure hu11o,, u11 a •,111,tll lul wu11ld llul i1llp«ir the zollillg pl.11, nor impair the p11Llie g11u.l where, uf ,i,ty-eight lots ill ,illgle separate ownership, IWL:11ty-oue were st1IJ.sl,rnd.ird in both area and frrmlage am! all uf the rnli,lamlard develu1wd lots in close proximity to plaiatiff 1"111 s,d,slarnlard sidc yards, alld aluwsl half of all the lots ill the i1lllll1:diale viei,iity had side yards whieh were nonc:onforming, '!'lie court rca,:hed the u,nclt1sion that the denial of the vari­ ;11Jl·e, 1111(ler the c·ire11111.,tam:es, wot1ld eullstilule undue or excep­ lio11,il hardship of ,;ud, nature that relief should be granted despite the 1ieighLur's offer to purchase the lot ( and without reaching the issue of the adequacy of the value of the lot as fixed liy tl,e l,oard). I I clarified the ,talell1e11t in its earlier opilliOll that the board co,ild consider lai, lllitrkt,t value offers in deeiding whether the· lot owner wot1ld s,dfer umlue liardship, slating that by this it was nut i11tewled lo i11di1·atc lhal exislell(:<: of st1eh an offer by itself w,,11ld support a dc:ni,tl ul relief, it w,rnltl cmistitule only a eir­ ct1n1.,tance lu lie co11sidcrcrl. Tl,c same factor wlii..J, the Supreme Court of New Jersey fo11nd co11lrolli11g in Cuugemi v. Board of Adj11st111ent, namely, wlictlier the d1aracler of ll,e area in wliieh the substandard lot was l,)('aled was S1Jc·h that it would be advi,rsely affected by the dcvclu[>IIWllt uf the lot iu question, was held to be a primary in1porl.,11ce by th,, New York Court of Appeals in Fulling v. Pulun,/Jo. 12 [aJ The Doetrine of J/ulli11g v, Palumbo 1"111/illg v. Pa/1111ilm has !,ad st1eh a pro11,irwnt place in New Yurk j11risprwle11cc since its decision, and it has been applied in su ll(illlY varied a1Hl se1:111illgly iueonsiste11t ways, that it de­ si;rves a si)ecial place in the eonlext uf tlw problem of the sub­ st;i111lanl lot. 13 Tl11,re, tlie New York Court of Appeal,; held that where an area va, ia11n: was so11glit fm tlte cunstrm:tion of a dwelling on a lot of :J/iOO square fi:et, localL:tl in a dislriel wherein the minimum zoni11g requirerncnl was, al the lime of the application, 12,000 12 21 N.Y.2d :HJ, 2:J:J N.E.2d 2n, 28Ji N.Y,S.2d 2·1\J ( !0o7), I J F11/li11g v. Pldtwd10 appt·:1rs lu he hlridly a Nl.'w York phe11omc11011; it docs 1u1! appeM to h.ive bt~(•JI ful!tnvt·d ill anr utlH'r juri.'id1ctiou. : ! :.'. ~·.1; 111!•: 1 .. 1\\' <lJ." '/ilNlt✓C .\Nil I'! l'.'!c,:JN/; S '.!:.:.O!J \Lt!(' J1·1·( !lit! c\TJ y Lit i1J111tt·t!Ld1 1 ly ~1\1111H111di111~ tlic UJH'. i11 q1t(''>llil!t \\'.I', ',lti11L1111Lui! ;1111! ,1 111111iln·1 ld uflii I kils 111 tlw .11,·,1 ,ti .il ,i1i!,,1!.111tLt1ri, ll 'ilHni!d lldl !1,1\1' !w,·11 de1111~d !11 th(' ,t!1:11'Jt( I lil :t '.)1ltl\'/l!1:) 1!1,tt l!l(' 1_l1;11,t1'!t·1 lll [ltl' l!!illll'(li;tlt· ll!('i\ w,111!1i !w ,\111·,·!n! liy [Iii· \'dl !<1!1, (", l11l·11: \\•1H1!il Lt· dilli1·tdly 111 'd!J111!) 111.l!, \\1 ,tl1·r, :,r·w1·1,t1~.t·, :11Hl tdlH·1 1111111i1 i1i.t! L1cil1li,·'i, (11 11111,11, !,,·.ilil,, ,,il1·ly, :i111I 1Vt·ll.1i<' IV!lllld I"· ',1·1 ,,·ii l,y ,( d,·11«1! uJ l li1 \ .11 Lti11 1:. Ji, o:,wli!!1l!, tl11:; d1•1·1,,ltl!1, tl11~ t'o111l, i1t :1tt 1ipiHH)11 Ly l11d1!,t'. k1·c1!!!1)!, 111.1(le ·i1)l!tc· u!J'i1'tV:tl.!l>1l<; \\·!1il·lt 11!11:,1 11.i,c i1 Lir rc,tcl111l1!, cll1't'! )'!w {(1tir! fl·!c11i·tl li1 1lw l!,,'1w1.d Jlt 1i: 1111'Vdil111g 111 ;·✓t·W 1·1}1!\ ,llHl !It (1!:w1 juri•,tl1t·lHH1'> !11:I! 1.111tiHg 11itii1:,1JttT~ L'11:.di111 1, 1!!111111111111 ;t1c.1 '.:.L1r11l;i1tl-, llir 1!w. j"(Jt1·,l111t (!1)11 ti! lHJllll'S :tll.' 11(J/ {ll't '.Jt; 1irw1111'>li/1lll\J!Ld, !licti· itlt' fHtLl1c !wtwli!~; I() Le l.le11vi:i\ 11(1111 ':!111 !1 u1t!11u11, c', .11111 i11 tl1(• ,t!1\1·1wc 1d d '>l\1l\\ll11t! ul ttil rc.t·,·(111.d1L-1H'·)•, lll 1l1i·11 ,tJ•iil11-;1(iu11 will lw "'T1ic qt1t··il1111i ()/ w]w11 a 1111111r1H1t11 ;11(:,t /tl!1ii1g ordi11;t1H_T iJ ,11wui1',I 11 ttl 1uH.i! u:, 11J!j)!t1',·I f(! 11 11111 (1,·u!11r JIJ"OJH:J{!J 11.l:, 11c\1 1'.!" [J('\'.li 1l(·l('J111i11t·t..! !i\' ll1i•) C:1nul :1ltlHn1gl1 tl11:1t· ;tit: ·,cv,·i-;d ll!!! ul ·,Lt!1• 1·:t'lt :, ,1·, \\'\'.!! .t\ !(1\\1 1·1· Ull11 t t..'il:-:.c::. wliid1 !id\!' ( !cd It \\ ll li ! 11,· /Jiu! il1·J1t. r ( ;1ti11g ! :t ',l"':..) '"l'lic L)d:,u· ndL· \1✓!11, li !1,1:, cvc.dvcll l11J111 tlw !'.l>t:S is. w!1cre !l1r p1t111ct!_\' (J\\'fH·I \\II\ :,HlitT ~,it2,i11lic·,t11i 1·1'1)l1tlllllC i11p11\, t!:1· ,11,1Jl11·,til1)j\ ,1[ ,111 ,l!i-,! ·,(,1111!,t11\ (l!tl111:11Jl'('., 1\1;1! .'.,l,t111l­ .!1ll 1·.111 !i1· i<hli/11·(1 <111!1• ii\ 11 ,lU)\\'tJJl!, iii.it !Le Jlulilic lic:tl!lif ·,,1i1 i\ .!Ill] \\r''.li1li' \\Ill 1)/' '.11'J\t'1I L_v tq1!1,drl1H,1', !lie .ippli1·:1- ! Jl,11 1d l 11,'. '>Ll!ll!.11 i I :1iHI j i11!', ( lw \·i11 ic111< (. · 1 '1 l )l'lll,tl 1d !J,· dtJl1i' ]1J i!w 11,11(11 !',11n11Hlut tlJ1 11,11111 whi1·!1 111q.i_!1l 1i111p11:)l':, Jui-\\'l11J·l1 t!1L: 111i11JHtHlll ,111·;1 Jt·•/l!llt !!l('I!! \\•,!', r'Jl,!1 11·1'.. '/ !1r· l1'1_"111·1J '.llll\\('l: t!i:t! )ti:t!lltJ!1c'! !i:11l (J\\Jwii, ;1n1I li.td :.!111 t >(1\rl, ilw !(it\\ l1il1: U\\'lllll)~ llH· ,11li~1:\·1 l1ir, ,t1Hi t(il1l1! ·,1 \I 1!1,· ,,11liJ1'('t 11)1 !(1 it tlL'!)!,Llior !u1 111(1Jt· 11:1!! l1r· !1.11! i1.i11! t.tJ) l11 ( 1111t l (1! ,iJ)lit',1!,), ,tf 11·1 1,:ll't 1·111g lu ! Iii· 1 j•,1·1t)ll .'lel ftJ! tli i11 !lu· il't,tl!d !,H tli1-· 1!,·1H,d, 11,1r1H•:y, !11,tl ilw JH lilH11Ji·rs l11ul L1ili:d !t) di:H1lHhlr.de ".11lliLl1 11l il ,liip :t11d !li,d (\it; (JJtli11.1111:c WilS Jldl I..J :~•iti l'-1.Y.S~i,l ,II •1;1! 1, Y '.',I ,d .IJ. tj ;J;!.,0!! SLI BSTi\NUARD I.OTS :.12-27 s11 ·,n·c,e ill tis upnitli<>n '" Ill !JL, c1rnfoc,1lu1y, because ol the facts ,,•; Iii ,1 ,, r<'sale value, s.1id. "\'\'!tile tlie,,e conoidc,rnti,rns are co,arnlliug, orn.:e il is dernou­ sl rnlt'd that tl1i: p,,hlic health, oafety alld welfare will he sr,rvt:d liy applicatiun of tlw zoning restriction ( Steveus v. 'l'uwll of llu1Jli11gto11, 20 N.Y.2d :3i52, 28:3 N,Y.S.2d lo, 229 N.K2d 5fH), until such a slir,wing is made, the financial !ms liy the upe, .iliuu of the ordiu,rnee should be sufficieut to c1tlitle him to relief. "To stale the 1ualler more precisely; until it is demonstrated tlwt some legitilnale pmpose will be served by restricting !he use uf the petil1uncr's pwpcrly, he has sullicie11t standing lo challenge the ordinance. Once it is JemuHstrated tl,at smrie legiliurnte plllilic i1tlerc:;l will be served by the restrictiou, Ll1e11, bdure the properly owHer can succeed in au attack ,,pon the onli11,111ce as applied, he must demonstrate that the h,trdship ca11sed is such as lo deprive him of a11y use of the pruperly tu which il i, reasonably adapted, all() that, as a result, the ordin,11,ce amounts to a takiug uf his properly. ( Stevens v. Tow11 uf l l111tlington, supra)." 16 Tl1c typical F111/i111, 1;. l'u/11111/Jo situation is where a minimum lo! ,,rca reslrictiu11 h;is !wen made more restrictive by requiring lnh uf :, larger mi11imum ,;ize after a rnbslantial part of the neigh­ burlH1ud has l,ce11 devL,lopvd prior to the amendment by which I he la, g,;r lut sizes wer1, required, 111 sue!, cases, the character of the 11eiglt!)()rhoud would 1101. be changed liy the grant of the area variance. This ll "fsl iull of whether a change i11 the charader of I he 11L,iglt!,orhuod wmt!d result has alw,ty; been a primary factor in ct,,tsideraliun of Lhe at'lion of a board of appeals in respect of ll1e g1 anl or denial uf an area variance.16 Tl,erelore, F111/i11g o. Pu/11111/,0 has been held not tu apply, dnpile tl,e obvious firnu1cial injury to the owuer, where lwenty­ ltim, 0111 of thirty-ni11<, lllls in the immediate neighborhood met the, 1l111t1icipal slu1al.ml 11· or where the evidence prolfered by I ti ~/:it) N.Y.S.2d at 252-.5:J, 21 N.Y.2d ut :H~:J5. I" Cl. Wacli,;i,,,.gcr v. ~1,,1,,,db, 19 Misc. 2d UUU, Hll N.Y.S,2<l 621; Wilcox v '/»,ii,ig lld. <>f Ar,p,·«ls, j'/ N.Y.sd 240, 2W N.E.2d u:J:l, 270 N,Y,S.2tl 569 ( IUtiii) I"/ U'Douucll V. Cla11·, N.t.L.J., Vd1. 20, 1mm, ut 27, col. 8, in which the t:Ourt ,..,._ :1·,.) ~)(; I ill. \\'. !ii /l)i\JIN1; \";!1 l'l .\f✓NINL lj :12.0\J 1111· li111111Lq1.1!11y c·'>t.di!1..,!11·1! t!i.11 u! !ill) 1!i1,T !1}!'1 111 lht' l1!11l-k \\l111 i1 11wl11tl1•1l !l1( !wl1flil!H'f'•, p11qw1!} ,\1td, 111 !Iii' li!ul\,,) !ii th(• tl1, ,1ndl1, .111tl (·,1•,l, (111!1 1111{' lut \V.1', !Hfll• t11il11n11i11g :111d, ,v!tik 1l1,·J( \\1·11· 111;1111iJ1l11;11ilr1\' ]11h 111 !!11· li!11>·!, !11 !lw w, .. ,t, tlid\e !11 \\,t'!i' I\! I 111 t,1]1(-J I Id l I\ l ! 1,1.: /i1 ·/1 l_ tu \11(! \\lit I ·,11i1· 1i!' .i !Jli·,y l1l!_l1w.iv ;i11d 1w,11 .i ti!(· t'\'itL·11\ 1· ·,l)ll\\'('\l iii.it ,le,,, )111·1)! !JI ,1 ')t1l1·,l,t111l,11·( i1it \\'iJttlcl l 11·,1!1· \\';t:, !1,·!1.! lli.tl 1l11·, \\',\', d l,·gi!!lH;tl1_· I tH1111111:1i!y r11·,!iJi,,11 !Iii 1!(·1i1,111,11111· \,111,111( t' ',(J\l.1'.,111 l!J 1n,il il(·t11, it 111ll:1t·:i1 \\ l1wl1 ·1 l\i' l.i·,·, iii !!H· !Jl111 r·i d,) td ;1 ·,,!11· (d ,t )HJ\ !1t111 t,I a l1J/ .t'> ;u1 .idd1!10111c1! !i''iit\1·1J!J,t! ·,ili· j,, Jill( ·,t1l!it lc·1d li1 11·111.lL'l IIH 1 (l!{l!ll,!IHT i11v,1li1) !'!11 11's.li11 !tiJ11·, \'.,11ii !l J1J1·\t'll! 1!1,· 11-.(· (d a lu! w!iwl1 ._lucs 111i! (111dt1JiJ1 lii !l1,· ·,[111, !t11i· \\.'!11( !t l!Ll\ Ill' 1·1(•1'(l'd tl1cr1·(J!I :tre !tt·,!11!1·,!, lH•(·;1t1_11· (!11· lwiwld·, wlJ!t·l1 !lwy l!Hil1·1 lljHJII tl1t• i'llJll· 111111!)' :1·, d \\ !1tJ!1· .ilr' lw1H·l1l'.1 \\l111·l1 .tit· -,L.t11·d itl !i)' llw U\\!H'f iii t!1,1( !1H_.tu :1 1', 1111!) w!ll'11 !lu· ti::)l1Jt !1.i11 11ptHl !lit: 11,t1li1·ul.1r [ll1J1wJ!\ !') !Hit j\1',liii( (l, !l! 111,d j{ d()('', 11111 ,',1·1\'{' tlw pt1lJ!i1· lit',t11li, ,,, ) ,·! \' ,t !J( ! \\ ,·!! ,ll i' Ill ,I /( ll I llil', 'i{'j l\1·, ! It,\! I lit ',!1 1111/i(·;tl!I (:l 1)1 llJlfl I('. 111i11 di '1i'\ ('11' l 1H.ill('i,1! !th>i, !1i.'l'!JJJH'', ·,l)',tldi('dti! ,tll(I !('!('.·· ) 't t'.'dT\'dJ /(J[J 1d t'1Jt111111111t!f ,q11w:t1,111, ,. ,111,I uf Ilic l·l1:11.tclc1 ul 1]1;· twq 1,!d11J1lH,tHi 1!111111,ii,!1 llllilu11111ly 1d ,tpp!i(',L{j()I( (Jr !lie j1ttl\l·,1u11-, ti! rlw tl1il111,u11,· t',, 1w1 \t', ,1 111,t!li·r {,i· 1tdc11·,;t ,!tii! d ,!1•1:.l!llJl,1t,· !llll!J,j•,(· I;) lie ',t'l\'l't! liv di! dll'il f)J !t{J!Jl.11),l~ !lf ·, l I 11 d .i 1· Ill)! l I I ',i · I 1·•;11 i, ·I l "',\! (!! ,·11.11 dt i )11 .t t ;t',1· ill\\ !tit i1 !!11' t 1IJlltlllH1ily iljl· ,,1 !11,· ,.,,,1,.1,1,.,, !,.,,"! will IH, .id'°"'',,,ly 'i ( \·!i't! ( !11 ilt1!!!, ! 111 I',! ;1111 11! ! 11(· \1i11·i;111( 1· •,1111gl1!, cv1•11 1[ 11tc; 'i,.'.','i(' ('t'(<!t11J1!1l i11111!\ j !'[11,1! 1(1 itl /i'1,l!i!1;~ I'., 1!1·111011'.,li.t!t'jl )Jy' tl1t· ;1pp!it1t1JJ 1 11 1!11' \',l1L1111T, t!1~ ln11d('11 1d !1,u111g fo1w;111! willi 11/ a !i·1!,t!H11,d1 1-u!ll!1lll11ily 11il(·1t",I Iii !w !lfl'Jt'J\'i'd ]1y de11i,tl 1;1 Ilic \·,ii"i.!!111· \Vil) L.t\'t' li(TH llll'I, .tiHl d die pr11pr:1ty 1\\'t\i't !', !ii '>IH t·1·nl 111 li1,.; 11rou·, 1 ltJ ;l11111il llll· tL·n1;d !w 11111:)t• ll"H1.11L,·,l: l! !', 1il11h,ti\ 11,!I ll l.11«1 \', L1·1' I!,,· !H11l,l11q'. '"ii 1,.i!l ll 11!.11 I; \', 11,·1, ti,. I' ,I 1,. 111.•Jc jH 1,f11 ,11,l,· l,1 !,1,11,] I 11 () l11Jt1:,1•~ 1,11 ,l 1,l,11 o/ ,11'1:11.,11, ( \lulii,! u1,i', l" ,.1,1( ilu• !)1iil,!111g ,,j u!lv, I ll"Jtl.1!11·, 111,:l,h ,!, .11,il,L :· I U ,L, i,,,i i, \' ! 1,t Id jH,, ,,i, ti \ ,ii !1.' ,di ·,1 .l'.J .\ I 1 :'.d 11 i \' ', ,:,! \','/ .\ ! j 'I :! l ! (htll), (i!i, \Ii,' f\) Y S.:..'.d U\J{j ( !'.r/0), 1·J Y.'!d Ull!, '.!.ti? [\1 l<,:!d i;I l, J f 11 ,\1 ) ,; 1/1 i 1'1,\11 l u c ,(l l!.il 11, ,dt:i, 1,i, :ti, 11, 1 d(·11, '/ ,11,1111'. j\J11/) !1.1111,·11, Ll :~ IJ :_'.d ·u:i, llf/ 1\!.Y S.2d U ( l!Vi'(J) 11),:H! !·I, \lid,· lJI l·l111d," / j ! \l1!Jdl1 l, ';.'Ir/ ( J'.H)!i- ,, s) I ~ :J::.Oll SU !lSTANIJJ\I\U l.OTS :l2-29 pruvc 111lco11stil11liu11ality of the ordiua11cc, that i:i, that the hard­ ,;hip ca11sed deprives l1i111 of auy use lo which his property is ,,dc1ptcd. "111 that dc:mo11,tratio11, however, the severe eeonmllic loss whicl1 is the lirsl laC'lor of the F11/ling equation 'dues not ipso /ado rt,!ldt;r t 111· n,slril'live zoning w1co11slitntioual.' Steveus v. Tuw11 of ll1111li11gtoll, s11pra, 20 N,Y,2d al p. 357, 283 N.\'.S.2d .it p !fl, :L.:U N.E.2d alp. 5U-l. It is l,ut Ollc factor l<J l,c c,111.,iilnt:d 111 ,ktl'rmilli11g whether the restriction of 11,e ordill,111u, 1, umeasollablc:, \Vlwrc, as here, it is shown lliat the cli,1rnLl"r ,ii the area will he changed aml that the luls ai" ad:iptedlur aml du have 11oc a11d value as an adpmct to ll,e adjoi11i11g resi,li:11ce uw11ed by plaintiffs am! pl.1iutiffs liave presc11l1.,d 11u 'dollars all(] ce11ls' proof (see Matter of Crossroads lle,realll>II v. Broz, •l N.Y.2d 39, 44, 172 N.Y.S.2d 12U, 132, 1-lfJ N.l,2d G5, G7) to estaLlish auy act11al, a_, dis­ /ind fro111 ecu,w111i,·, loss, it m11st be held that tl,ey have failed to prove that a burden so undue and one-sided as to an1uu11t lo colllisl'alion has Lee11 placed upon them by the urdi11a11l'e." '1 llul preservaliu11 uf tlie existing relatiollship between the exisl­ i11g 111mc·o11forllli11g h,,iglit aml bulk specifications of the structure a11,I tlie size of llic, lot on which it slauds does not involve a legiti- 111:ile public i11lere,t."" lleduclion of Llw size of the plut 011 which sl a11ds a lrnildi11g 11u11co11fon11ing as to height, setbacks, and the Iii,<: dues 11ol afkd the right lo cuntillue these nonconformities, ,,u lll11g as the si:u; nf the reduced plot is eonformiug.23 i'Jur dues the possibility that a ce,spool in a nonconforming locatw11 lliay h.1ve lo !Je replaced at sume indefinite future time d11d l'uuld 11ol !Je rqilac"d in a confonniug location if the size of l l11, pr,,senl lot were reduced, meet the municipality's burden of guing forward wit!, the proof of a public interest served Ly denial uf the variru1cc. :1 4 >' /i2 ~!be. 2d al UH. J07 N.Y.S.2d al IO0l-!002. :t:i \'(lung v Hoard of Zuning Appc,tls, (j2_ M1:,c. 2d 147, 307 N.Y.S.2d 895, ,,ll'd :l:i A.D.2cl ·J:l(l, 'l 17 N.Y S ~.,I :J\J/l ( !U70). J:J ':id1\.,,1rtL v. H1,,ud 111 '/.u1i111g & App1·,d."J, N.Y.L.J., Jan. 21, lBntJ, at 18, col. 7, 1.,1 You11g v, Bui1JC.I uf Zu11ing Appt:al.s, N, 22 ~upra. '.!"' .'\I) TIii: .1\\' (Ii·' '/<l 0,/l:J(; :l'.JIJ l'l.\1\/NINC :; :1:,,0D { )I 1·1/1i!f j)!li/1///1/~· ( '01 j) C1 ,l ! 11 il Ji i(' 11111'! c",I \\l,l'i !1i1.1:d 111 ilw !ll1J\'i•,!1,11 til ;1·, 111.tll)' u!! :,l1t'('( Jid!klllg <;p,wt'':, <tL'­ ,','I!\ !11 .111 t'\h!i111 1 1'1J111li111,ili,iu idl11·t• ;111tl ;1pill'!11w11! i111iltli1l)!,, 1Hi<,•,1!1lt:, !li '>!;111• ()/ llw /;i,·! !L,d !!w11· w,·it' !HJl ~\'.; 111,1t1y 1 .:!,1·i! l,Jt· !11 1,·!.1tt1111 id i'.d(!! •,pdl'C 111 !\w h11i!tli11g liy a11 ;11uc1Hll'L! 1c,;t1111111c1d, ;111(! 1!ii111111i!J1H1 (1( t!w lHill!!i1'1 tJ! l'.\!'.liog !Ll!kl1l/!, •, 1 ) . l l , i • \.,, , t ,_ ! 1 ( , 1 1 l 1 \ 1 i , i • 1 ! , 1 1 , 1 • t 1 \1 ! ( J r I i , • 1 > 1 i ! 1 ! i i i 1 1 i ( . 1 , , ~l l . !! !1:l'.J ,:!')ll !u·1·11 11·1,11',!ll.ti·d !!1:d Ilic 11d1• (i) 11,., pri- 1/.tli: t!t'lr111u·11( .11','1111·11 il1,· ('i!l!1111111itlV 111ii·1t··,! a11d tli;t! r(·l,d11q~ {1J 111,: IJ!J(tl('H 1,! !\111111 1 L11\Vdli\ \\1Jll1 Jl!fwf, i1', ·11·! !1.irlh Ill /i'11!/i11;~, \1/;l'.1 ,!Jiti!it·;1Llt· !1J v:111,111,·1··1 u! !"t·:,11 i,·tJin1·; 1d!wr 1lu11 l!1u.')t' r1:Ld- 1111: !ii 111i11i111l!1H lti! :ii !! w,i'i ,11,pl!t (I 111 liH: 1·;1.\c lJf ;1 v:1n.11t(·e •,l ;t u·1111i1(·d '.,l:!11.i,·i~ l1tJJ11 (l!li' ;t!111l!l!i_1i, 'i!iu:l, wlwn~ llH· !ol C1Jld1J1111,:.l iii ,ill 1itl1,·1 1,··,11,·,·1) !11 llw ;{111!111•, nrdi11.i11{·1•/'' a11d 111 i 111\(,lv111:'., piil )1:111(!!1, llil', w!ii1·!t !.tlll'1I lo l'tJ1tln1u1 {() 1\11'. 1111il,11:1' 1cq1111·l.J!lL/1l·11d ilH· JHil111t1Hl'<'.·1 i I k1,, ,t!:,.i lit TH ,qi11!H·1! tii \-',11 i;iJI( i·>J 1d lH1ild111g h1dk c111d p.irL- 111,1:_ 1,·1Jt1ir1:1tl!'nl',, 1i1,! !1i !lit'. !H!!lllJ1'f 1d !1.1liJLdilt: sl1;1 Jl•'J 111 a 11p1,'1,·,i :qi,11ll!11·tt! IJt11lil111!.!,, :Ju ,L1 wi·l! ;1-, {11 v;1rL_111l't• u! 11:,11 .ui! ;t111I ·,idc y:111! r1·1111!1(·11w1l!~,.:hi \\,!11l1: L111.1 1,H.t)!,t' tl~cd 1,y the 1·11111! 111 .:.<111ic (',1\1"; 1i1il11·,t11·d !h;d Ill!• pliil1i·,(1pliy c:i..pre.)•;t·d in u. Ful11111!1u \\',t•; 1c!l'\';t1d lu c:t•,t•_,, 111vulving t1)t' \',1ri• ,1111 ' 1 :i::i well ,1•, lu (ft 1 !,lr.tl1ll v j11,!1:H1,'H! ;wlio11b i11vid\·i11g ( 1 ,\:111·, 1J/ !1.t1(!·1l111J_-11 l,t!1·1 1'.\.Ji11"l',llJ/J\ (1/ !,1i1, {:011rl uf i\!l\H'.tL :.in !✓ y :J.d I J'1 1 1,✓ L .. '.,! ·i !7, :J:'..l. r-.J.Y •.; ~~d 11'Hi ( l'.f,' J,;1:1nd111u \'. l11,1,q,u1 . .i,,I VilLiJ\•', :~.'J,!.I, h·li :J, ]1/(J\J, al HJ, LOI H, ,1)!'d :i j ,\ J) :~d I !l·I ! J/)\J ''J \' ·; ) \(J, !t 11 d ,111 utl11 1 1;1,1111,d. '.!'/ 1\/ Y.'..~J '/()!), '.'.!i~ \ '1 1·1: i'J,11). \1,· j :'t)'j I I J .'~ I :', I 1 .'.1111u, 'l l .\ !J.~rl lll'.i(i lllH N Y.S ~'l_,d 7 JH, ll'v\l '.',I I !.l ,:'.,I Ji ': I JI I, dJ Ji7 ~\'.Y S .'.,I :u1.i 1 111:1i); !'.l.t!u•,!1 v. !'.q,cll, \ !:Jiu), 1:1"11) !11!! !1"111(;:,, 111(: 1 ll.11L1,·1(', i:~.1. Y.:·, :...'.,! ! 111/1 ), f1•\-'g :lJ :\ !) ~~d Jilt \ )l,,,uil ,d /,,,1111,'. c, .\p1w,d,, t\! Y.I J .1 ii :'.~ J ,\!')" ! '.!!1\l, .It ~I, l't,! IJ 1 !, ! <d!dln ! /L dl I Ii, l ,d .! ' !L,,!HI ill /u111111; 1,: Y. I. l111w :!:,, I '. )(i ~l, Jo Y,itll11; Hu,H1! ,d I l !(, /J l /,1i11i,1' :\1,pc•,tl,, {J'.~ /\j l',l ~),! I!'/, :30'/ l\J Y S.;:d H!1'.) l I I I. t<1111J)l·J11•).',)'.('( \ j\\J.t!cl iii ,\1•JH .11\ u ,\I) :~d :1:n, 'JO'.) l'J,Y \.'.2.(1 I \'.i, .j ],':l i 1:1/0), lit ,d11, 11 tl1<· 1 ,11111 -,1,dl'd 11 1l1d 11,d ,L·, 1d, ",li tlii, 111!\t'" wlwdil'I" /,.11'/1111~ 1·,ui11oll,,l ,qq,IH,1J)l,lj•, J,,1 II,<' \,ill.lJ,!'l ,; \'otlli\( \ !LJ.ll<! ,d 'J.,Hnns .\p1;1·,il·,, :i:-1 :\ !.l :)d I l\J, it·: Y 'i .!,! l'Ji,, 111.; ( !:l/0 J. L,1 I l1111111!, .l j ,\)):)ii,') !O(J N.Y .') :.!d j ( l'Hi\l), ,I!!\\ :2() :..; '1 .'.2d 1u1,·), ~>.'J!J ~✓Y.:'.d itJ, .J 11 i\: i ,; :'.,I W!i ( l\/'71) !. ~, j [j :l2.0!J SU llST!\NDAI\IJ I Hrs 32-3l ol New York rnnrh,r s11cli application doubtful,3 3 although the nil" is still wli"d upou i11 c,tse, of area variauces.34 I :i J Effect of Sell Created Hardship J ii cases priur lo Fulliug v. Palwulm, it ha<l been l,dd that it was iilll arbitrary aml capricious fur ,1 liuard of appeals lo deny a \iii iam·e for .t s1disla11d.trd lot where the condition which ren­ dered the lot sul1,ldi)(lard, i.e., where a lack of conformity with area rcquin,mciils ur Jruntage requirements, resulted frorn an act ol the applicaut?• While in some special term decisions 36 it was staled that Lhese cases hacl been nullified by the decision of the cuurl of appcab i11 /!111/iJ1g, later cases held that while the fact tk1L tl,c ,,dJstaiid.trd cumlilion uf the lot had been self created, it did nut rna11dal1: a denial of the vanance :,pplied for, it was not arlillrary or c:apricious lur a board uf appeals to deny tlw variance ou I his gnH11HL 37 3S D,1L1w1hcilll v. 'I'""'" lld., 33 N.Y.2d ,1(,8, 471, 310 N.E.2d 5lti, 354 N.\'.S.2d DO\), DI I ( IU7-l ). , 3,1 lllcNary v. Wurihiug, :!78 N.Y S.2d 437, 51 A.n.Z<l 552 ( HJ?o); Koenig v. llu.11d uf Zouillg Ap\H'ilb, Si A.D.2d 552, :JHJ N.Y.S 2d 305 ( IU7U ). :lO Ch,1,a1wlf v. Sdlwr,;ie111, IJ A.D.2d 872, l77 N.Y.S.2d 620 ( ]!)58), uff'd 6 N.Y.2d ti07, JH8 N.i'.2d l!J.l, 15\J N.E.2d (Jtl,1 ( rnsgJ. Ferryman v. Weisser, 3 A.ll.2d OH, 15tl N.\' S.2d 5Jl'/ ( 1()57); Crifli11 v. Reville, J,19 N.Y.S.2d 312 i l!J5(J), n.u.r.; Fio,, lloo,cs, Inc, v. YUlmg, J,j ~li,c, 2d 576, 177 N.Y.S.2d 535 ( liJ:jlJ), aff'd 7 .~ Jl2d BiJ,l, IH2 N.Y.S.2d :JOO, al!'d 7 N.Y,2d 845, l(J.J N.E.2d 860, I\J(J N,Y.S2d \JU5 ( l!J51l). 30 Auc..11<> v. llluyL,n, Gll lllt>c. 2d 109,1, :io1 N.Y.S.2d 765 (HJ69); Matter of Cuhc11, N,Y.L.J., Apnl 1, JD(j!J, ,1l 2ll, eol. l. ::17 Co11lino v. lnclllptJraled Village, uorcpurkd, N.Y.L.J.1 fi~c\J. ~). JU69, at ID, cul. 7, all\! J:J :\ IJ z,J liJ.IJ, :JOU N.Y.S.2d 130 ( 1070). rev'd 011 dissenting upllHUH l,eluw, 27 N.Y 2d '/iJO, 262 N.E.2d 220, 314 N,Y.S.2J 15 ( 1970); the di'>:.t:oting opiniun ap\HU\11:tl liy lht: ccn11t o! app('als c>..prcs.sly rt:aHin11ed the .self 1',l·dtcd h,11thh1p rnlc c11<11l\'1,1kd in Cha~aouii v. SilUc1:.td11, N. 35 supra; Fina. I lonu•:-., 111,:. v. l'uw,g, N. J5 :..upr..i:; B,111lldl<1ln v, Ulrich, 20 AJJ.2d 751 l lUU4); Fl!rry111,ln v. \Ve1!,:>cr, N. 35 s111)1a, '"} !ier1.; 1.s nu rnfringemeut of conM :,.ll!utional right 111 11,c 1up1ire111c11t that laud 111,1y nol he .so divh.led us to create snLsi,HHlard plois ( Malin nf Farndu v. Schneptlin, 21 A,D,2d 801 )," 33 A,D.2d ,it 10-14, Jrnl NY S.~d ,1l 1:rn. And sec lLl lfill:iide Ave. Corp. v. 'Lai110, N. 27 :iupia, iu which tlie court 111 dppcab sl1c:i~ed both the powt!r of a board of appeals Id L".\erci!-.e ih di:-,c1l'lw11 by dcnyiug a rt:qm.•.stcd area valiance whe1e the sub­ :-.t,111da1d co11d!l1un 1es1dls fwn, the owntr':, own decision to sub<livi<lc bis prop­ erty, ll1u~ cn•aliug ow; l>1 IIHHe IiOJH:onfunning plots, and the fact that ( unlike the ,;1tuatiu11 i11 F11!Ji111!,) then: Wt'IL! uo lob in the sarne re~iJeni;c <li:.trid which rnemlJ!ed the lot l11r \VliH:h the va1 ian.:c w,i:-. stniglit, or were suLstan<lard in ;tn)' a.'lpt:cl. "It 1s the pd1tiom:r alOm! who foil:-. tlw meet the :wniHg requirements c,L1!,li,hed l,y ilu, unl111.Hlcc." 27 N.Y.2d at 26:l, 317 N.Y.S.2<l al :]08, In such ca!>~, where Llic ch,uJ.der~ of tlw udgl1horhood would be adversely affeded by !!II•:!.\\\/ ill• /l\!'Jl'✓C: .l"-/il i'l,,\'-J';INC: lj '.11,0!\ 11 .. 1 1,1111 i,I 1]1, ,1 ')"' ,11 ,I , 111-i1,d·, i/,. p, lil11,1,,·, 11, t11(L·1 to :.1011 l.t:d 11111•,I hl r,.,J!1 I· 1 l'ti/"11,J,,, ,L1,11111,!1.ilt' ·11i.,1 tli-· li.1,.1.l,qi c.1t1\l'd !', . .,11!1 d', 1,1,11,, 1 11 ,,1 .11,1 1,·, «I 1!11· J>l"J1'·11 1 111 "!11,l1 11 1 1,d,,n1,tldr .id.ipt,d .111,I . ,11, d,, .. ,1111,.,q·,· 11<1,,111,!·. lu d l,1L1111'. u! I ! p1!i1wdy" 'J'l11·, L111,\,·11 . i\ I; 1i11J1,/ "I /:.,. 1,. ,.11 l1,i11Li11 1, I h,· !11,,1111 1.il li,ud·,l,1p 111.i·.l !1,· 11<111, t)p ,1,!,,!111.11\11. J l.1,i« I:., I•,,, )1,,, I , Ll .\ i I U:'.ll. ]Uh 1\/ Y ') :i.11 "l!O ,·li.,1, .,J/1111,icl 111,· ,,11111111,,,1,i ,,I ti,,• cl1•lt·111111,.tlll,11 i,l ,l I 1.i ;!!I u,\Jj( 1 "'! tl1, .11dl1111il:, u! J u//uq; t1 ,,1 ·li'i" , , , l I ., , I, '.'h "-~ '1 :.:ll , j)) ! , ! , ],')'.), :!.'l I I\J .I·, ~', j .' j \, , I '.1 1 I I, I dlil/' ··1:, .r:,·L .1 ,i!u,,!11,11 "I ,·!! ,1,,t1,.! 11,JJ1 i1Hil(111,i;I, Lr 11,.· u111a·1, 1l1t· !<'til!11q; ,i., 1 ,1u11 J"'i'-( IH iv." I 111 :Jl ,,! I ,11, !.ii, 1 ,!, 1'd"1" 11\ 1l1i•; un1Jl ( ! :1nll1111J \ 11,. \1' !'<II. le,! ) ! , ,t(·,,.l, ~· i' :,: ') .'(l ', i} l. ! I I :\) \' .'J :1d I 'l. '.11i'.! ii \!,1!), / ,,/ l 11l!\1l!,• .\ \, I•, ,1 \' 1 /,tl111l, :',/ \' 11, : l ',I r•; 1: 1 I\ I !11 ! :iH1lt11". dw \1>11!1 1:,p11··,,l; '"lu1,l,·tl up1,. .• ,i1 ·"I' ,.·1!.i1, 1,11, i Lt :\ I J ::d !() ! ! .i\l'.J \\Ji \,",:,I, l <1!i11q;, :,,.], .I \11.11 d,•t'l:al,H! ,!hi 1111! ,ii: !11,., .. , 1,d L, .·, ., i••••\l\',1; 0 \\lwi.· ! Ii,· !1,11 ,! J I I IH· ,,1,11,1.,11 ,di 1,1( 1 ltd!/\1' !·"uli! 11> i\l.i(t,·r .. ,l,,1,\1 ,! I Ill, l.11J1•11.,' .t·, ,1 <'(JI ll't"l ',ldt,·111, 111 (/! i !' Jl),1i, /,J / !I JJ '/ J:;) ,L,<1,t! lll d \,111.<11,,· 1·, ,·LJ,,,-ly !lil,·J~.1,11,,! w/1!1 1).{" ,.il1d1l}' ol 1l1v 1,.,!1h'- .,1,!J1,,.,,1, 11" 11 !/ 11.-· "1 11(·1.tl l1n1H,H1,,11-. ,11, !do!d.,/~l' .Lilli •,11,· t,J lul~ 111, ,, !t. 1( .i 11,..i1., ,,1 l.nv, ti,.. !,111,l, n ,ii I!:, ll< ,: !•, , ,,1 t l" L,· ,,11 !1.i,, ,, l:,1 :,ccL.·, 1l \\'IH·11 1 l,1· ,1,.I /,,Ji \ . '! 11 I! I \1 (' I t ! ' ( ' 11 I I 111 'l l l ~ (.' 1 l ( 11 I!'.! I I ! I! 1 I 1, ,1lll1\·,I lu -.!11,,. il .t1•,1111 11! (.ii!. l",l'.t' 111 \\'!)" !1 1.,111.lli!'I' l\ d1·111cd" \11,I I l, !Jtll !\,.1!,11,.1~ ,11 p v I h l.111), ~'h >~ Y ;_'d ·1 l:l, :!.'/I ~✓ I< ::.d '.J:r/, ·,~'11 /I.Ji!) ,,.1,HI, Jl1•.-11!\:·,I d 1.111,t1,,1 JI l!i,· 11·q1!!1,1! idl:,l1r·vl 11 .il, .1!u.1,l\ ,1,,1 .. ,111) "11,1,1,i, 111 !!,111il,(,, iu 1"!11,.I dll llll'l('d',, ll! !111· l,,,1l1liit1'. l.i ,1,,,1,11 11 ,H-,(·,'<u1r, ,.,!t1,l1 11 .. H-,l·,.: t,·,1u11<,! 111>11,·, ',' E. ! 'oJ /, 1 .. 1 .q11,l1, ,ll 11,1, \', 1·, ,i. 111,·,I !lll tli.· )'I ,11!'1\! lilt i .. 1:,:•,l1q1 I !1,1 l, .. I 1,I ,,,, 11., !11! 1"1 t!w l, ,11111t·d p,til,11q!, ''!"ht', J ,, ""I.I tl,1• 1,·,1."\ ,,j d! l ,\I ,I 11•1' t·:, in tH,lt'l ld 1ni l,.1, l,n ll,(· ,,,l.111",1, !., !lh !.1,il,!1,'!', !11 ,i 111,,.-,·ii11q·, !u ll'\'H"\\, Iii,· ii< HJ.ii ,! ,11, 1lw ,llHi1J1I') ,ii fu/.'1111 IL, .qi11,·l!.11, 1!1\,'d•i!l, g, ,\ ll~',I !()I'.~, ·,! '.i,' 1 ,!111111,, ,! l,v d 1,I. ,l l'llll!l '! !1, , 111111 ul ,qi1w,1\, 1 , 1 ",! Ii ! 1.il,Li,,,, I 11.d ,L .. d! 1 .. ,,, HL.!;11,1!. !,J 11·,1.ill,',I u/j ,(H"tl p.11L.11q: :,1;,1,1·:, I, !11 L,• 111·,11,,l ,l 1 \\L, 1: il1, ,,,d11,.111 11 l.>11 .. , lii,· 111111d,,.:1 uJ p,\ii,111 1.; '-11.ll•, f,; 1111 /li/u! .i,, ,I! Ii,,· L.i1!,!111,;I, 1.:!i1,·1 111.,11 ,l, ,1 1,,1 \,llhlHt.t, ;11Hl "Hl ·,,·,11i.·Hth il11· .,i,llul.11,L .11,1,li, .1lil, 11, 1lw l.1111·1 l!1i! 1,,d ,q11ih·, !lie l1H!i( ul ,l[ljH ,ii:, ,1,i1,·,l Ii .. · ,,1,cd 1lw 11il,· 111111wi.it1,i 111 J·1,!lu11:, ln th,· h1'lil ,1[ d, ! ,L' l',hJ\I>, 1(·11·111 d ill 1!1,· lll\11,11 )><>111,111 "' ilt1·, l1i,lllHllt" lh li"!ill!q! Ii\ { 11 <//iii/ H!,!1: / :,11 JI l 11, /1111!/ 11,,1 \' \H ( 11 l·idfu'!; w.i·, ,td! ,1.i1,l1 .t, .J! IIH' d,iil' ul tlw upi111,i11 I~ I !';11.t11, 1.11 !1,\11!',)i/1, li".lllliHl'. Ji.,111 <'(lilHlll1!( l.1:., ( Ill),, l!!JI ,l( Iii,' Iii/'. d,ilt,. u! ,,ni/lH,11!1111 tH ,111·,!111\ l11n11 tlw 11·<,l11t:­ tl,·11i,d u! ,I 1c .1·,,111.d,lt• ,,[u1li, J•, 1l1d1,1.111l1 ,,.il,lH'l\i l,1 l!i,J!,i !)H 11111tllll!l<1!'1y" ttHlh: !u1\\,\!1\ ,,1111 1, I ~ :J2.tH) SUllSTANDA!lD LOTS 32-33 (:1) ( 1/ (5) (O) a .)h1iwing th,li tl1c J1":,(1idw11 1:, J11.-,tdied !)y a public rnte1est if, prima f.u.·it:, 110 p1il,lll· i11l,:1t.::il is :,t:rn_•tL ()nn: ,l fitHltlt.'l<II 111tt·1v.,l :i1dlk-1t·11I ln !ll">ldy till' 1e:,Lridion i:i :ihmvu, lllere dw:-. ll(Jl Jt!Cjllllt: ,l Vi.llHHLLL' lo Lt.' )-!l,lllleJ. \Vhcrl' a JllUJH'II}' wh11·h 1:; ctmforn1111g is t'rn1VL'1kd by lll(' prnpe1l)1 owner 111 :-.ttL:h d n1.1n11L'i lh,1l it 110 longt·i l"(11d1JT1t1s, lo:,:,, if any, is !lOl due to tl1e ,tppl1{'.1l11111 u! tlw 11·-,t1id1t1n in q1w:-ili,u1, li11t 1::. the result of the uw11er's condud, i.e., 11 i~ :,ell 11npi1:,1:d. But uvc11 wlicH: tlic li.ird:.l11p i::. s1.:ll-Hnpmcd, the i~su1:d ts '.ilill prc::.ented \Vhetlier llu: detn,d ,ii !lw v,uiallc<.:: i:-:.u:,lai11ablc 1111Jer Pulling, Most appli­ c,1lio11:, lu1 ,1 \',t11a1a l' lo lmild tlll suli.~L111d,11d p1u1wrty or in a 11ou-conform­ ing il11w11n t".LII lh: viewed a'> CilSt'S of i,dl-impo~cd h.nd::.hip, ( Ft,Jling itself W,l!:i :,11cli a l'il:.C ) Tlie d1•11ial i.•, su:,l,11nabll' 1111dt·r F11/li14g 1f, Llt.·:.pite de1dal of the variance, the a1Jplka11l, \\'I.de su!fe1 ing a11 ecrnui111ic loss, has uot liad the value of his p1op1°tly co11ll:,c,11cd l1y the rc:.llict1(m and a public inlt:rc:il ( i.e., smne L~fd uf the p11lil1v 1.t·.i!th, :,,dcl)', and welf.11c having a rcl.1t1un tu the pur­ posn uf zu11iug) h ,1dv,uH:cd or proledcLl tl11:rd,y. ( 7) If lliL!1c b 1w puld1r: inten::.l involved, the deni,d is ( t~ven in face uf a mere 't•co1io1nic lw,:,' l}f ·1i11aud,.d iujury') u11comtitutional in lb ,1pplicution lo tlw p1opvrty 11111.lcr cow,ideralion. ( 8) 1u a lypil',d /o'1d/1111; ">ilu,d10n, conl'ernvd with qucsti<Hlb of area, ~ize, or frontdgc o! ,1 lul which rdatc lo uuwuitks, adding up to a ciut:sliun of 'the cha1adcr ol tlw 111·1glil1od1wHI' whL:fc all, or a suffidcnt nurnbt:r, uf prop­ erties ill Lill' 11n11tedi,dc 111'.iglilJorhoml uf dw subject properly arc similarly 11uncu11fo11nu1g, liidL' 1~ wi '1.:har,ll'lc1 of tlit~ neighborhood' to he rnain~ tai11ed. ( H tht· 'tl1ai.1ck1 ol the ncigldio1houd' is the only public intcrm,t wliid1 d1·11i.d ot ,t vo1ri;,11n: would ::.e,vc, tlw ahscucc uf such character 11ie;,Hs th ill 1w 1ndJ!ic Jllterc:.t is :ierved.) (Ll) If the cl1.11,ak1 t,t tlw llt'Igldiorhuod wluch tlie rc~lriction:. !iouglit to Le vari(:d ,lie i11tt·11dc,l lo {u:.tcr .ind tJll:!it:rH! i!. found to e4ist, tht:11 the rule uf Cu11l1110, 11:J 111/l.mle /\vi:1we Cu1p., and l{(Jwe Street A:isociotes, lnc. applies. In Ove,hdl Jfoi(,li1,1;, w·ighliunng prnp.:rt1l::. we1e .')in1ilarly IHH1confOJ111ing in tit.it they, loo, li,HJ lmtdlicicr1I ulf-stred p,uhing sp;H:e to comply will1 the cxhting rcqui1t•11Jt:Hl!i uf tlw uali11,ll!L'1:. Tlib <lid not St:f\'t.'. lo 11egate the t:x1.•,ll:'nce of the puLlic iute1e!>I a:. 111 tlH: c,1-ic of lul:. otherwise :,110:.lamlanl in ;1rcr1, f1ontdgc, or ya1 d,,. Thi\ t:H'U:.et.l Lick td 011-~.ile, ulf-strel'l acccs:iory parking ~paces for com­ nH:1 ..:i,1! l,uild1ngs in !ht.: a1c,1, niadc 1l a m,lltn llf p11hlic interest that the existing p<11kmg .space:, tHI the ,1pplic,111t':, properly !ilmuld uol he diminblwd, ,w<l its non­ confunn1ly iu thi:, 1n1wct, :-.h1)llld uot be i11UCi-1Sed by the added h11ildi11g bulk. CtJ11!,c11111.·ntly, tht: l1t1<1nl of appcids could rt:a!',rni.dily Jctcn11i1w that further in~ 1.'1t:ibt.· uf li11ild111g .\p;H:l· 1eqt111iug further HCCt!.~sory p,11king sp,lcc, but rl.'.:.ulting: 111 ,I. di11111111tiuo of the 1J11.-:iide arc<l available tlw1efdr, vmul<l bt: lildy tu result ill 11,dfic prnhlt:111:-. am! lwvi.: au 1111p .. 1ct un p11bl1c s.1frty. Denial tJl llw variance n,11dd lw .irbiti.iry u11!y if it dcpiiveJ tin: piopcrty OWllt:l of a11y u::.c of the prnpcil)' tu wliicli JI \;,,.1:-; 1va:-no.tbly ad,tptnl, Since all thal the l.u1dow11er had ,,lw,\'ll wa.-.; '·wL·n: li11,1111.-·i.d l1l'>'.>," the JH01wny :.till being c.ip,il;k,. of use as an 1 z z z z z ..:::: ~ c._:_ -:_:; :::, ::: = :: ,, = ...,; -~ ...,~ :) --:: - = = ---" = = ,, ~, ?: ~; ~ -~ ·~ ~~ -~ :.) > ~ ,..=: ~ ·-~ :: ? - ~ j-: ,, ::.; = -", = z ~ r-­ ,_ ~ ~ - ~ i :: z < z \ ·' ~n~•~DA~Y~·~AU~G~m~T~•~·-~-~--------f~!N_A_N_C_E_a_n_d_C_O_MM __ E_R_C_E _______ ~~~~~~·~~·~-9_-,6 170 N.W.2d 543 (1969) and Stau v. Hi<>rnik, 284· Minn. 316, 170 N.l:.2d 231 (1969), require that oral testimony aupplc~':tin& a warrant \ffid.avit be reduced to writing conumperaneously vit~ ch_e applic•• ticm for the warrant. Kinn. Stat. I 626·.oa (1978) provides: "'A search warrant cannot be baued but upon pr~b•ble cause, 1Clpponed by affiUvit • * *." Minn. Stat. f 626 .10 (1978) autea: ""The affidavit or •ffidaviu !!!:!:!.1 Ht forth the facts undint; to establilh the grounds of the application, or probable 5ause for belie-Ying that they exist." (Emphasis supplied.) The 1tatutory section on oral testimony, Hi.nn. Stat. I 626. 09 (1978), providea: ""The court or ju1tice o! the peace aay. before iHuing the warr.nt, examine on oath the pe-r1on 1eeking t.he varrant and any vitneuu be may produce, and !!!:!.!.!. take his affi· davit or their affidavita in vriting, and cauu &&ml!' to be aub,eribed by the party or partiu aaking aame." (Emphads aupplied.) The aajority has no trouble concluding th.at the a!fidftvit in the instant cHe appears deficient on iu face but, citing State v. tampbell, 281 Minn. 1, 161 N.W.2d 47 (1968), hold& the evidence aeiud pursuant to that warrant admiuibh because the officer who aought the varrant tHti!ied ft the OUll'libus hearing to aufficient additional fact.a which he uid he swore to before the magistrate. tn Ca::i2bell, decided before~ and~. w upheld a Hare~ baud upon a deficient affidavit and unrecorded sworn testimony. ln !:!.i!..!!:il. ve disch&rged a writ of prohibition because o! unrecorded facu dbcloud orally to tht .. ghtrau by the officer-complainant. ln bo~h c~:--.rbcll ani! ~-hO"Wever, the 1upplcmcntary unrecorded ,-..·:.,~n tes::i!::ony w.:is set out either in a post-trial affidavit or return filec! by the iuuint iusistrate, thu, removing, •• vc uid in Ca-.;~dl, any vestige of pouible doubt as to the substance o! the inforeation. 281 Minn. at 8, n. 6, 161 N.W.2d at 52-53, !1· 6. To upho!d a aearch on the bash of unrecorded svorn teJtiJDOny on the sole recollection, after the uarch, of the officer charged with ferretint out the crilff h • ttep ,not t.aken by thir court before t.oday. S-uch a holdint directly contravenes the rule w-propounded in ~-There we held t.hat: ll)n order for a detenr.ination of probable cause to b1e ■ustaine,C against• constitutional challenge, · thf>re m..ist be • cc:;:,laint or a 1,wOrr. record made at th(' tl.tnE-of tne dc-ten::.inatlt>n, vr.1ch cora.a::.n1 !:~~=' s~~~ 1~~~~~e t~f li~~~!t f:c~~~d~~ ~e~~o~;~;~-cn:~; • / j;!a~~~=~es.ury to_ det«n:ine the relia- 2iii H.i.nn. at O~, 170 N.W.2d at 549. (Eaq)haail supplied.) ~ .. de u.ndatory public recorda.tion of c.he U-A&i..M.tiOl'I. of the complainant .:,,_d any other witna:UH 1n al,lf)port of the ~pli.ca.­ tion for a ••rrant. State v. Miernick, 28' Kinn. at 320, 170 l,W.2d at 233-34. Such a record.aticm requireacnt for oral teati..ay pro­ vides substantial protection tc t.be con.a tit\rticmal nql.Lir-.nt of probable cause by in~u.ring a •sn1.n&ful review of~ -ahtrac.e'a detendnation. 'to ignore tbe record.ation ra-quireatnt and allow AOt'I• recorded oral eestiaxiy t.o proviU the bub for a probable cauu detet"llinati01" i.,v:!.tet c!-r.:-.-vaaticm of the affidavit requinaent. 1 would reverse. CLAY COUNTY Mo. 304 State of tt1rme1ota, aupondent, Leonard 1.,ugene Packer, ,Appellant. V.bl, J. ftrrer,. Spann•u.a, Atty ... n. i fttoeaa L. Gill, 1,-c. AHt.: i,.ny IU.Cka.lber;, Cnty, Atty •• 'IIOOrh•ad c. Pa\ll Jon.a, ho. Oef. a...r .....,. , .. "96D, a,.c. ANt.. • IIPla I Y LL A I Us· 1. IYiOfflce of •t•41ut.t•• p.ilt of cr1a1.nal .Maual ~t .In the HCObd de&l"ff V&a ■vffici,ent. 2. Trial __.t, ,-•.-nt co a. 404, I.. !Yid .• Jl,n,perly u:cluded e-vi.dat\cc that U-year-old coq:,lainant 1ri. MX can bad be ■tl 'f"icti• cf another .a. offeo• ais ,ean earlbr. l. Trial CDU:rt'a auppl.aaa:tiury 1Aatruct1oc1. atwm. afur jury •uud tba:t l.t •• •Ht lOto 2 aad .•■.• baYi.ft& a prolilaa, wn pro,-:r •d WN .. t &ataa.•d c:a QOr U.k.aly t.o ootrce a wrdict •• 't.1t1.-d. ar,-n.t. OPl ■l0 ■ KAHL, J\lltice. ( Hon. Gaylor:, Saet.re, Dut.rict. Court ftUl .Jud9e) Defend.ant va, tried in district court on tvo counu of c-rioinal N"Xu.Al conduct in the fir1t degree and one CO\S\t in the ncond Ck-g-ne. "1an. It.at. II 609.3,42(a) and 609.343(a) (1978). Tbe jury foW\d hi• not &u.ilty of the tVD count• o( criain_,al eu:u.al conduct iii the fint •er•• but 1uUt7 cf tvo-leuer included of!enau of Hcond Ngree, alona vith the charced offenH of aecond decree. On thit appeal fro ■ judgmrnt of conviction defendant, who vu aentrnced to concurnnt limited aax1•um prison tenu of S 7eara. conunda (1) that the evidence of hil cunt VH legally insufficient and (2) that the trial court erred (a) in excl udin& evidence th,;t vht"n com~ plainant vu ~ or 6 yean old an elderly m.an ha~ fondled hl!"r. and (b) in giving certain aupplr~ntary in5tructions to the jury •~ter the jury, which had deliberated fot about S hours, stated it Y.is split _10 to 2 and vu. havint • problem. We affirm. Tbere i_a no eeril to deh~d•nt's contention th.at the evidence of hil guilt was legally insufficient. U'hile corroboration is not a formal requ.irea:rnt in prosecutions w,der II 609. 342 to 609. 346 (1978)-­ .!!! I 609.347, aub4,.. l (1978)•·1ii1e have stated tha.t there wili bt-cases 1n which the testi1:10ny cf the compldnant =nd the ~vidence ;n.:t forth by the defense are •ueh that a reversal 111ay be necess:iry absent corn>• boration. State v. Ani, 257 tLW.2d 699 (Minn. 1971). In this case chc.re vas atr'OTl& corroboration of defendant'• guilt. Lbder I.. 404, I.. Evid. (vhieh replaced thf' evidenthry pro• vilions adopted by the legislature in I 609.3-47, aubd. 3). the trial court properly e.:clu.ded t.he evidence that complainant Nld bef'n the, Y:lcti• ~f Ii Ms offenH 6 yean earlier. W'h:lle the trial court •hould haw giwn the inatruetion approwd :ln State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 211 N.W.2d 165 ('1973) •• pan of it• original i.n1truction1--tbenby forewaming the jury ·bov it aboW.d proceed ~-forestall a deadlock before then wu a •jority or ainority•-the trial cc,urt did not prejudicially err in &iving this inat.ructiOD for the first ti• when the jury apy,.ared to N diuC:loclted. IJA ScandarCU, Trial by Jury, I 5.4(b) (1968). The instruction was balanced and was neither intended to DOr likely to coerce a wrdift.. The court'• •nt.ion that if the-jury wished to adjoum de:liberation, for the night it would be u,nt to • a.:>t<el v•s proper. Sch-ulu v. State, 290 ll.W.2d 778 (Kinn. 1980); ~­ !!!,ll, 287 M.W.2d 918 (lwm. 1979). Affiraed. lfo. 147 David E.. Lvi;er, .... 50321 City Of aua.n-ilb, Seott, J. Appellant, Oranni• a. Grannis, vane• I. Grannl.1, Jt., llloqer M. iitnutaon an.:~••· .. ■pondent. Sc-ott, Att.)'1,, So, St.. Paul SILLAavs ~H "'° ■t.atute oc-.... iNIIIC'e perait.e or r.-quirH Mi9hborhood con.e ■nt te • aoaint ••rSanc,e, • city council •Y hOt requae ■'Wry &buttln9 propert~ owner to OOftNnt to • propoaal to conahuet • boae • 1:9ru.1n laad. Sir,,c,e ~ citr CIOl&ftCil ben-woted MA&nia:>ualy in taw»r of t.he 9rant of t.M ••rianc. aought., a writ. of Nndaaua ahall lane. Dtl ■IO ■ 9CO'T'f, Jult..ice. ( aon. &ayaond Pa•lak, Diatrict 0cM.lrl Trial ,haJv-) Pldl'J,UU Da-..id &. X.,.r ---• a writ af .._ndalNa ~lli"'w Ute lut'"nft'J.U• City CONCU If ,rant. • .-.rt~ •Uowi."9 bi ■ to ~­ ~t.. 1ou. .. OD a t.racrt of l ... 1a. kranUle ntid.iYhion. YM Dakou ca..n,,-Dinriet Court ._ied Ute wtt, conchdint 'that the nJ.avant. -..te ■t.at..ut.e and t..ba lu.TASVill• city ordioaao■ •u .. AiOria-1 &.be city c:auae..Ll t.o 9raat.. t;.M: •uiuca allb.;t..:-t. t.o r-.ipt ot ooaaa.nt b. wrlt..ih9 Ina all of ~ abott:t~ propertJ ~rs. Pre-that. judp,a.nt. t.h1 pla1nU.U appHla, 1111 renrN. TM .,_.a.avill.e aon1a1 wdi.M~ proAibiU coaat..rVf:'tion .b a ai .. le-taa11r naiMntial •ht.riot • a lot a.,.-1..,. l••• Ulan 15 feet et fl'Qlrtap alllutt.1'19 on u ... s..u.., Mlllicat...S puu.e ~Y. In llTt, pl.a.1.e.Uf! J,qv pu,n:b,aNid a l..J:--=ra U.-t ot la-4 1ri. ■-ocb a -------------------------------~--"-""4 10 4let.r1ct at• t.u Mlo for fJ,tH.H. ft.a hbj.c-t t.r.ot U •1.aai1- J.ocbd•••11ar~ed on all ■U.• illlr ■Uit1..-f-.11J bola ............. pxiYat.e acee•• to 1lood &ill.,,.._ aut, • pubUc ~,, lllf • l ►toot. st.rip owMd t,y plaiat.S.ff lriftl Mjaoent to • is-toot N•-t. & liou• -.llt iA lHJ • property t-.diat.lr IOlaUlillfll ■t at ~iaUH'e md 1ia11ar1J •1udloeked• C"VN:DU• •t11b .. pl•U~f'• .,.!Yat:e-....._ • it.a •lJ __,..,. t1D • ptal,1.ic .....,. 0a _,_. U, 1171, •l.&i•Uft flW M a,pU.oeUN wit.Iii -• ilaru,,iUa_lonPit ltm.l.ailtraU. fCll'. Y&d&bele '°--.bl.a ...... a.uu • Id.a property. 0a a.rut n, 1M Pl.lmalal o::-J.■as.. ~ ---4ed -,ipl'OVal of tM n.rLano.. Oil Oc"tcrbu' 2, at a llllranUla Cll:I' eouaeu ... u.rtt at -.10 ..._ Mi~• appMNd Md wto.1 t:M1I' tiMpptO'l'al of plallatiff'a nq,ae•t, tM city ooan,cU ~J' appnn4 the vrut.ag of dire 'llllrl.u,oa, •Rltjeet t.o let.tart of approw.l l,y all abvtt.Ullf fl"OPU1.J' WfliU'a.• •J.a.Lat1ff c:ball-..S tM aaaci:11•• aeuoa a,, nqNat tor a writ of ~ 1a Uatrlct. oovt.. 'Ille -.art iv.led t.Mt t:IN: C1D8111Cil •a ectJ,.ac., ~ 10 a ._ial ef tM war~. w.• aQtlaori..S lllf atata .., ho&l 1--. t'bl. blnM .. fore u la .-..u.r IU.aa. 8Ut. JI 11:1.111•,._. (U,a) m,. thl -.nnilla City Or4ia.noe atllD&'iN u. city .-..eu to --1• don tu approw&l of u -,plica.Uoa tor a -.r~ • Witt.. ~ fna&INtUD9~. --ln, --.ieip&lity -.,u.,. ~ -- -t prod ... a prooedare a., wb.lcts affeet.ed. ,-nau oaa ..ii.. _,1.n9 r~u-. -· eut. 1 •n.asc, .-. a 11,n,. , kn:nUle City Couc:11 11&1 potlU" ~ nau Ian 'to bur recpe,•t• for nri.ance• frca t:.he 1itual ....,. ~idOft• of t.tw ord.iM-tlN b LA•t.&nc:41• when their at.rict er1fo~nt .ctt.)ld cauH m.d,.._ hardab.ip bare,a\l.M, of circ,a,,,. at.aneH anifl'I• t.o t.be in41vU""'l property Uid4.r OOQ.a1-r& at1on 1 &ftd t.o 9unt IJ\Jch -.ariance• ocly W'hetl. it U ._.... IIU'ated that •ueh M:"t.1011 w1ll be 1D -...;:iill9 wit.b t.M epirit Nad inu.nt of the ordiaa.nce. • • • Tt. IIOiuC or 90Yern.in9 body aa tJw c&N .. y bl My LapoH oondiUCIUI iii I.he tr ■ntin-q of n.rianc,e• to 1aa,,n CClllif'lu.ac:. Uld to protect. adiacent pRpert.i.ea. · Ill.an ...... I u2.n,, --Ill) 11'71). ftll -Ula..,_ u­ oatJ.ca of t:.he ......,., Jl,l'O'rition •.ui. •--111,u ~ an ...,.,u .l. tiff ieul. tJ.ea or ..,rticsl&r lwu"CMip1 • la ..,.tJ.119 Ga --.ur, nplat..Lou. """ orAiaabce -ubl.iabe• u. fol1Mf'ial •.U.:..J..M for e:a..-oit, ......::11 '• 1n1u..,. • -.,uc.at.1ou tor ..,.UraiCM, (P) 'b ooui.dtrinf applicatJ.oma for .vi.arcil ..._ t:IU.• Tit.la, t.ba CcN.hcU OOUi.deu CM ed'Vica..,.., ~­ --.ndatiou of U. Planti.iog ca..i ■■ioe ant tM a.fleet. ol. U-. propoiMd n.ri.aoce ~ t.hll Mdth, aaf•ty, _.,: •-sl:••• of t.h4t ~hy uilti.D9 aaiO uticipat.ed, vafUc OOtl<" c.ion1, Uf'bt aad ab, '-nt•r of fire, Sitk to ti.. p.it.· Nfaty, .., Ula aft.ct OC •al~I Of s,,rop.n.y 1D C,M rowtidiDt &J"N., aDd t.he affect of t.be ~oMd -.&ri.ar apa::i the ~r-abl:u.iva P~. lf tM COUi,c-11 eball ...1ur­ aiw that t.ae ~i ■.l ooeditiou -,.plyUMJ t:c tM •~ or land ia fl'IM•lJ...oc are ,-culi.ar to ~ pnperty or 1--aiat.alJ Mljo1.Dibi9 property, &ad 6o DO't •PPlY .-,.ral17 to ot.Ntr J.Jwad or at.r.ctaru ill Uie 4J.•t.rict. 1a 111hicb •id l&M h 1ocat.a4, ud tti.at ti.. .,rutiai; of U. appU-;au.• b n-=eHary for the applu:ADt and I.Mt traatia,g U. propo...S ftria.ie. will aot 1a uy -.y Mlp&ir .....ic.a, Mfety, ~ort, .:>rah, OI' ia UY ot..M.r ~ N --­ Vary to ti. i.at.-t of tJua 'fit.U ud t.bl: Cl:alt~i .. kit.. Pl.a.D,, &1114 tut ti. 9n.nt..lht of n,c.b n.riuioil will aiot -.r-ely Nt"'ft u a ~m,,ce m tba flPPUOMlt, '-it U ~NJ:'J t.o aUed.at..e ~•t..rabl• IWL"4a,b.J.p or titU.­ CNlty, t.M Cow,c:11 MY ,raot. t1111c:b n.r~ _. ......_ --5.it.ioe• ud aat...,.aru UlllahiA. -•.willa, -·, &:No I 1.-4 ... n>l lltftl. ~ •lr -l.ut •1-of -... .,. ---~la --.-dty--•---.tU..._..llf_ elty -u u clM.<lJ •taoorl-to ._...,. ... ,_, ~. •1&1aUff aot.. t:.briat a --..lldan ef Witt.a CIDUMlt tr., ... t.tJ.aiie ~-l• aot apaeUic:allr •;:UICtiMd ., tN at:.ataw ..a ar,.e• -• lt u UIY&lU ---,lin,ct.lJ NlatN w --ef U. aoeiD9 _.J...twmce. U tat.. ONrt ___. .t.a toa•lt •· City pf alaneapoli ■, :l'Jl &lrm. ltt. 1JS ■• •• M tJI UHS), ._ieipal _,._ woratloa.a....,._ao bha-ea.t ...-n, Nt ta.17 ac:tl u an ...... 1;; ) --l,J --W -u, -1-----· In 1'hC ,.lea&nder CO. -.. City of OWlltrmna, :122 IU•. IU, lit•••• N :I.a.I lltHI, w ..,111 • -lcl.1oality'o --ef a -Lal -1,t 1w . oonat.rac:tion of a ,-,.11.c us. .... y ..u tM ,u.-.u u • lap.tJMu eaeteiN of police .-.,r NOUN tut "'1aat.1 _,.. a •~1 nJ.aUot,• t.o -obj...Uft _... to loo -1-11r -- ruuict.ioM: ,-,U.C Mfety. ft.u~-----~of-•wi,a.ta 'Ji. : _. or city -u aT _. to --or _,_1., · 'T" OWM:'I in ~ ~ a 8ot: & _,.iuoe Mf .. 91'8au4, llo.rtlNIHterD CDll.,. -.. CitJ: of an-, ■1111. Hl 8. e. N NS tlli,tm. Ult), llllllic'e 1M ~ff •llaiflt ---i a •..-u.1 .... ,-.S.t.• --Ud a .,,f~. ~-.~~-~•a ~~ .. ~ . .' ~ _MU ~~ .1:M --1~:1f1.:~· ~~J~~~~; ~ rn-'-J .. ~ -~~-~~'tc!~ic: P&.tory, 1a 11fbt. of I.be fact: tbat. Uil -.zt\icipa lity allO'Wid a eia.ll.u prinw 0011.,. to ...iu wit.boot ... kiDt • ap.Kial pera.it. ouu.ua, u equ.a1 prot.ectlori a&lpie, w aot.ed tut tlMJ oal7 lntweat -,,.r• ' •tly Nn"M bf a:.. •Uteret. u .. tant o:f t..ba ~ coll-,•• ... u.at of 1D~int Mtfhib,ora. •,uu..,h Mipl:.orbood MDUN:nt. Mf N t.u-. iato ...,ia.Eat.ioa J.a &DJ' -ut 4-:1 ■1.oe, 1t •r 110t oout.ltvui 1M •1• 1:11&11• tor fr'UUDt • ... riot a ,1 ... ~t.. • Hl •••• 2d at tH. a ,en-eu-Uar, J.a lartoe. Cont.racti!I eo., tac:.•· City of !:!!!!, 211 •· •· a, ,u. n,,a,, w ...,_1, a cfty CDWM:11 '• ~ of • a,.=1al ..., pent.it, fiN.Ulf NM of U.. r .. ■oat aot.t "1' U. citJ _,,.11 YalU ... ...,Uei•t CO j,..tl.fJ tbat ... I.al. 'l'bo fact tMt •the ait.iaeu UI ~ ..... of J.fue ara oppoMd to U.. ... of W.a 1ud (propo■edl• w.a aot., boliwnr, • ...., nf'Ueiut1 -under og,r ._.., thl-aS.llple fact tllat cca1N.Dity ..-.r, oppoN • ~r ui.a9 111• lPd tor • ,-n.ic,al.ar purpoM ia eot a le9al17 ntficia:nt nuoo for ~ ~la a _..1.a1-,....i.,.• HI ■. W. N at 711. ia 1arton, w foaad 1t aiwnifiout t;hat t.M plaiatifl --.ht • apocial--v.N pctrait rether t.Ma • wariaftC:!'8, A ••rlaeoa allowe •ropartJ IO ._ u.d in • aaaoer forbidde l,y the ordiuace, a ....-eial­ _... puait all.Giwl a ... .....-.. aly autho.dud ta," tM ordi.aaaoa. Iii ■. •· 14 at 11s. •· 1. nu, • a...wy a..ntu 1 ■ ~ • u -..,u .. cut for a •uiuoa u, ..,_ t.Mt iu ,rut b appropriate. ...,.. a spKlal ,-.it la -.Pt, 117 Ollllltl'Ut, t.M R.r6aD 1a • tM .-.r-,le) -to tba -to aatabll.oh foc:u -111.-"9 lU ~l. !!!!!!!!­ tonb Canf!!t•t.iotl of .Jahoya!\"1 WiUl■n••• Jae, 1 •· '""• JO) IU.u. ,t, 24' •• W. 2d. SM UtlS) • ftw-.-n •uaU.tJ.c CiCIICICU1lt• of •ip&::lorJ.aia ~ will aot rlN to~ 1 .... 1 of Mr"!oaa lliu.l~. •f.ty, _. .,,..11.c ..itan -.i...-.u ... -.ic:i. , .. t,lfy Mnial of u -11oou. tw a .,..c.J.al ..... ,-:ralt. "'1D c19: ._. Iran\, lee .... Cit:)' of It. ~• Hl ll.laa. Ml, 112 e. W. U lit llUl). ftot .. laclpla _. -..tad_.. ...,..,17 la• ..,-11.ar ... , .,a1.a 1a U. -t:ast. el' _..,._. a -.i.aJ. et "1&,iatiff'o -lJ.eoU. -a ~ -,.,, •it. u attW ~t ,...i.., ... ~c -...u.r.uou • .-,__ a -IIMu fw ..Ul.fJUII • _.._,._. 6afl.&l.u • -1..w.. -- •u &a~ •t11o1t. ~t.J.aa t:lterat• t::o ~ -,.• 21!!! l!.'"'-" .§Cia!;tJ:5L.!!."1!..!!■,=l!!!!!i!l!!!.!1~h, MJ ... , 1, U, US a.•• M T>f, ,,1 (lt6Z). ......, .ii 91_~-~~-~ ...... ~~ .-m,i.~J, -• tNJ 6o -nricdJ 1-..i a -.lci,-lity f.--.u-i.,,,, --------·----.-·---·-.. ..,_t ef a W,ri.UOI • -1~ appro,&1 •• ........ ~ •J• tna ~ t.M ...-i. et a -.r~·-... • UIIII ·lac:k ~ .;.."""Tar~-~ (--"'...,-----.:,..;;; et - ~~ ~.., -~~;.;;;;.;-;;;-t.i:.;... __, '!'.!· la Mt.rud ,. TUlffr ff f!mP ft h-aJ.. 2'71 --~ •••• u, •.•. N sn ll~)' -"1&,iaUlf _. •• ..-.... a.UA • alUple-f-lJ ~"'--"'---'-'--...... --.. ---u.•.tae--.. -ealJ" -Lal -1,t --"' t1111.1e eaq """le-faaUJ ~ ..U loo lallt. ft.lo_.·-- •u. _. Vi.al -.rt. U.t t:M et.tr•■ Maiu ef .lataUff'e 1111Pll-.UOD wa utM.tnrr eM alarfal ..._t ..-W.---~ • ... ltll., -'-tr, • wu---•-"1-..----•• P,i..J.atJ.tf'• a,iplieaUN.1 appNr, to ....._ .._ n~ ~~!! :::~i::.•:t~ :O:!U:·u.'9 no- ~t.J.ou of it.a plUAJ.nt -.i.Hiori or -•idu tM nporu of it.a poU.oe, f 1.ni, or Mi&l t.h ..,_l'UIIUU IC i;,Mc -1:f.et. tbat: ac Jlll)t,tOtial It.au.rd• -ld follow ·u ., ~t llu.1141111 .. r• Clt:IMt.nH:t.-6 °" pletntiff'a crn:1 ~n.:~:S!r .. ~y ':!;:4 .:..u-pl'OPar- tJ.e• wan adj(1.01811.t t:o pla.iot.iff '• property u tM effect ta■t UI ..._ir aflini.CIU, t;M.ir propu-U•• a.l.9bt N 6"al­ _, u 1M ,en.it -.n p-aataid.. ~ ~t. M• ao "-1J.t7. In ... • .. ,, M1, H, a. a. M. at. 111. -1-"'IIIIIDlf, -"'~-------,-t!U- -,.t ..-.-•--allal.W., --tt• l,J --• ~ i..., ......... ~.,. -~ .;.;._ •• ....,u..: -~----c-----------··---·--.. ---· -··• .. -t ... ,_. . --t ., . -,.1uoe,. -.....w. 1:Mt 1.uta ....... ...,.,1, J.ude..t 1a • later ..... MIHiw y Cit'ief Is-, Meth tm, ffi ll.laa. Ill, UI a, w. Id 111 .llHtl. la l!Ullilli• pl.&1Jlt1ff -'>• • -'"""°" "' -... llw.!A --· a1.1d:ial• "' .. --- -OU1le-CailJ -• • iuu.e -• -· -u .« ___ ,... 1-n -·-·al ----111 .....i-_,, __ ., __ "'IIIW:m '"'1Y ___ _ f'1a1"Ufr _.., a --'-1-..,.it -fallJ •t ~• -et ~-·-----1.d ..... __ _ • Mal.ti>, -'"'1, --••Uc Wlf"". b IIHW!!i.• -ul.al ' --.-rt. AU.._•,......._. Utiat-'tM .-i,J.e wlf..,. ...S properci, •1•• -14 M .... pd by -~~ ~~U'W:d~--~ Ula ·~j.uoa _;..~i~ ~ii• .;;,~(·•,.i',"·~: ~~,i~~•,lt0 i70~·•~~1•~.-~t.~"~ -----~= ,~ ---------· ... --~----------------:ew ·-·-·§ :u .1.zt. FamAY, AUGUST 1. UN 221. In ~ ~ t:•l~ted ma lanv-wv• in filhter v. CitX pf Minne-­ IE!!!, Z7D JU.n.n •. S>, .u> •· •· 2d s~o UH4J, cert. denie-d JU u~ -~•. 14 l.lHSJ, to the eff.et that, ,.~•rdleH of their appearance, the-ill effect of conatrucUon of ■part.aeat buildiD91 in •r••• of l'ea14-ntia1 . dwllih9a •~ sea. u:tant i• • Mtt•r of jwUcial not.ice.• 270 IUDD. at H, 133 •· 11. 2d at SH. Thu ■, t.hia court •halal been .olidtoua of t.he righu of ■urroundi"9 pro,s-rty cn,ner ■ in paHin,; on tbe PJ'Opriaty --.------------ of 1onin9 restrict.lona.• ~-... ltil~!-" have DC?'~ at.ated.".'M~r . t.he dedr•• of surrounding property ownen uy be d.hpoait1¥e of tM , , ·~-•--·~----...-------- que,tion of ~~her...!.~~• ~-)' be ~!'.,.~.: Where courts ta ct.her juriadictiona Mve con■idued. thia ~tion.: Ut• conclusion 9enerally ruchad U that, althou9h the deair .. of nei9hhoring landOVhera .. )' bave relevance LA the 9ryt or denial of a •ariance, they M)' eot be dJ.apoaiUve. ac-. of t:M eu,e■ are eol-. lect.ed at 12 Aa • .Ju. 2d, loning and Planning. I 265 CUH), wbu'e the cc.ir.ent.at.or coocludt:aa A boa.rd of lldjt.l9taant, in fftenlininq whether to 9rut • vari&.r.1ee or apecial perait, .. )' consider th• attitude of neighboring property ownen who are either proteatin9 or offerinq no obje-ction to •ueh adminiatrative relief. Mow­ ever, au.eh rea:>n•t.r&nee• of t.ha landO'lt'nera are t,y oo •an• eonelua!Ye upon t.he jwS~nt of t.he board, and cannot control 1t• action, nor ia the fact that there are a large nuaber of object.or• a acund Nsia for the denial of the relief .OU9ht, no .. tt.e-r bow st.ren1J01.1a the objection&, Th• function of the board of adjuat.ent au&t be n•reiaed on the be.ah of the faeta adduced and upon appropriate zoning principha and obje-etivH and ia not to be baaed on a aere poll or plebe­ aeite of neighbors. The Nrit.a of the application, X'&t.ber tha.n the ,nUJD.ber of proteatanu, should be the contr-ollin9 consideration, crootaot•a caltted,) In Puller •· loninq aoard c .J::~• 90 a. I. lH, 15' A. 2d 210 (USt}, for axAaple, t.ha 00-.tl ..,_1.).,1..ia.d t.be son.int board'• denU! of a ,ra:.ianee which IIIQU]d y,,• •l,~ r,,.{~Uff to build • 9•• atation iJI a r .. ident.i&l u... J:n reachin9 that 6tciaiOD, t.,b,. court aade ele.u t.bat. it nlied ocl:, on the board'• firat 9rouad for denial-... it.a find.11)9 that the propoMd 9-■ •t.atiora 4id aot 9erve pu.blic e9nvenietace &Dd -u.,... n. court ..,,_ ao wei9ht to Ille board'• aecond grOW!ld--•t.bat &11 of U. ebutUng re■identh • property · OWll&rl objecud• to U. ,rut. Jf 'tllillt --.r• the .cl• Mai -.w -~ denial, the court said, it WDU.ld l'W'n.rN IIY(Cb u &bu, f cu ..... retioft wi~t Naitati.cm.: •.1, aue poll of tM -i,tuoriai; ~ .,._ aot ■erve to Hsbt the bou-d ill .. tenlJ.nia; -..thar t.M aaoeption applied for i ■ oon.siat.aot with tt. public: ~ or ... u ... n or Whet.her it will t.aDd to ...,.alaate the MiVhborint: propert•·. • to a. I. at lH, 156 A. 2d at 213, llecauae aut.ut~• and. ~inuac .. fr.;:NTIUJ r•i;°:U~-e that ■ n.riuce •Y be granted only llbue tbue ban bND fi.114J..D9• 1ard.i.119 Ula •riu of the applicaUoa, a Mlllbl.r of coarta ba· -~ ~how ~t.e•t.a of -i~~~r• to 4upc:trae c-..!..,!!!'.!.mx:a~ic■:• ticm beeaiuae-to dlO ■ID ~d •ff.ct All 1111&ut.boriaed .. legat.ion of ta■: ---------~-------·------wd.ni ■at.hority'• n~~~ty. .1D &cit •· Soili"IQ loud of ...,.iw, 74 a. J:. It, N &.. 2d 12l (lHI), pla.1.atJ.ff arpad t:bat ~ rea--■ t.be board ••" tor ._,.iat 11.i.9 applic:at.ioli. for • n.ri.aaoa ...._t.atad that it ~ aot ~i.Nd .lta ~ Mt.bodt.r to Mkti a tleciaiml bued. Oil t.M -■du of 1111.a applicatioc, ,_t Md tlcied it arbitr~ilJ' ~ -l:Olfll naiAlmu abjeetel. flit --.n. ~ -• -loc&l -1.at ·-...S -.,._ .. -.bli,,g --__.1r prc,w-ida,4 a ~ .., aJ.dt .... J..uoN -u ... pait.ed. ...... .. , -~ ,_ -• p1&1aUff -"° -1w, _.,. ill a -,. _.. -..,. --,au -,-Ufy ulllUUJ' ~ o/11w, -u- atioc far • ft.r~. W.. ....-t ... t • tio .., t:Mt. 6a __.. ..i. --1r -tu~ o11 plauoUU'• .,.uu.. • ..._ •:1-u-.., ...U..u., --·• Ill!<"" .. ,_ ..u • - ... ... J.dend bat -.i. a.t •~1 t. 61clai•·· •• , .. u ef trM ----....... -~l.ftillt~o/1-------•ill--tru ____ ., _____ -- -~i,, ....... --.-.. --id...1aa,1111·1■,,. .... ,__, ____ ., ___ ----- ,, L J .. • N. II A. M M. a,. aa.uari,, u .,..., 0, y..,.1n, _. .. .-Nl, n a. M na CUM!,_ ~l-_.-~a a-1 ~ -•• ....... U. 9f iU I $ t ►S!tt, .. ~ ~ff'a a,plieatJa --·-· --.... -1n1--•-'-,-•lal tiwwtJ.oll .... tea ..... ~ t:IN ·..-1a1 ...e.s.u...• ............. 111■.tau.tt•• ~ a.naiad ....... of. wn.aaea ..... -... -·· nt-1 .. -,-uti.. "' -,_ -· • luwe -o/1 ~ --• --• o/1 • -• "l&I -o/1 .. , __ -•.--lr -:,:UO.lu ~ ,U ~•.--■ -- .,·,-. ~ ~ .~ ~ .. -11,tr o/1 -u ..,.___. ·'. ---~}b 11 JU Pa. •t HS. u A •. zd at nf. ~d, Silverco, Irte:, Y, loD.1119 ao&rd Of Ad;h••t:aent, JU Pa. 497, lOt A. 2d 14? UtSC). ID t.be cue before u, t.he City of •~n ■vill• ar;~ued bdor~ the­ trial court that: •aather ~n .. ~P~JOVe or deny ,t.he varfanc• .. request outri9ht, t.be City Col.\.ncil cboae to allow ~~u:ting _ property CMtnera to deci~• whether • natriction ec.ac:ted fer their benefit should bl waivad.• It ya ■ preciHly thJ.e dele9ation which••• criticb.S in ~ ··-·---=c-··~····- !!.n!. and~ and i• Town of Westford v. Jilburn, l?l Vt. 120, ,oo A. 24 52l (1'73). Tbere, the court noted:""\hat aute law placed t.be entira aut\ority to .-rant ■pedal exception• to t..ha s.onin9 lav wJ.t.b the ao&rd of Aidjuat:aent1 •1ovher• 1n the en&bU..n9 act ie thU •ut..horJ.ty del~at.ed to adjacent property C.T.ert. Nor.o·,1-t•, tM d~le:-- 9at'ion of authority ~ th• Town of weatford to t~ adjacent property owaen carrie• vJ.th it no ■t.&iwsard to 90Y•ra it■ uae.• 131 Vt. at JH, JOO A. Jd at 527. ft.la ca•• doea not involve • ■utute or ordinance vhich peraiu --.....,... or require• nei9hborhood conaent Ut UM-grant of • variance. Such • · .. px-ov4_aion 1n a city chart.er, re-quiring tbat any c-hanqea in lend u.ae ei;-r,N:d to by the city council be-approved by • 551 vote in referenda, ·•it.hat.ood fe·donl constitutional attack in City of i:aatlah v. rorut City t"ntcrprhes, Jnc., 426 u. s. 661 Ut7i}. See aiso O'Brien v. Cit,· ot St. Paul, 215 JI.inn. 371, 173 N.W.2d 462 U969). The court in £!!.r: of Ea•U•ke d.iat.inguhhed .. rlier case• in which it held that le-gialat.ive power .. y AOt be d1:levated •to a narrow Hqaent of ~• c::c:aaunity,• au.ch · •• t..hoN --vhoH pr~rty abutted city •tr-Ht ■ or tboae who owned property within COO fHt of • propoaed ,;ari ■nt land oae. 421 o. s. ,11 (eaph&sia .1n ori9inal). ~hion by x-efcreDdua i ■ aot • ddec;at.ion of power, but. a.:_~uciff of powr reHn_, by t.M people t.c ~~~!~!~~re• h no specific •tatvtory authority to condition tM 9rant or denial of • land-uH variance or the conaent of local property owners. bi •ort.l'rweatern eou-,e •· City of Arden Billa, 2ll ■. •· 2d 165, IH (117'}, w cit.N ao1iert Anderaon'a USat.iN t.c eupport. our boldin9 that Mi9hborbood ■-at..iaRnt •r eot CC!ft■tit.au the aole baaia for •~~t.iD9 or ._.Ji.at • apecial s-naJ.t, Anderaoc dr..,. tM f~:lowin,g wluiw ...-t. Uie effect of public IPfO!it.ioo to ~ propo,ee,d v&ria.nce: .. ariaqa of t.N' board of sonin9 appeals 11aually are wll at.t.ead.ad. llot i.afre,quently, opponents t..c a variance applicati.OII orerflcw thP Narin9 rooe. TN bo.t.rd of ao1u119 appeal• .._Y baar t.M c•H in • rooafu.l of ¥C>Cal part.1-..na, and it .. Y atudy • r•cord Vhic:h inclYdea petit.1ona ai9ned by the peracns 1'ho wish to be recorde-d for or a9a.1nat the appli­ cation. The effect of t..bia •hibl• opposition or aupport can om.ly tiie IJlN:•aed. The propriety of deciding an applic•tion on the M•i• of t.be nsabe.r of s-raons who expreaa t.heaaelv•• for or a9•inft • c:er-tain reaul t. baa, of COu.rae, been diacuaMd. by tloa.....ru. 'l"be ..,.._r of perac:.ia who az-• for or a9ai.nat. the wrant.i.b9 of • YU.lance-i& neither • r•l•vant oar • proper consideration 1D deteraining the -■-rit.s of an applieeUon. One court obaervad 't.Mt it thia _,.re not true-, t..bit raa\llt M>l.lld be • 9overi.ent of aen rather than one-of law. Jt b iaproper for • l:loard of lldjuataent to place wa.19ht upon tJ,e n~r of proteat.ant.a rather t.ha.n on UM m!-ri ta of an af'plicat.ion. The at.ren~u• obj4tCtioa of raaid4tnu ia aot '• legiti.Mte bub for t.he denial of a ,,-arianee. a.n-oca­ UOfl of • nria.nee-ia not adequately aupported wh9n the principal reaaon for auch action h t:.hat 1,000 peraooa aiped • p.titioc prot.eatin9 UM •arianea. Tbt c,u.alit.Y of the prot.ut rather th.an t.he quantity of it.a aipera aaat tuide the 41.ec.ration of tlMt a.ou-d. L --• -.ricaa ...., of a..u..,, I 11.to CM ell. U17l ,_ -•-ll. fto ......,,Ulo Ci'T -U u --•-"° -... ••UUOal ~uoau-■ of tu aeu-a,y ....,.1r1..., _.., -•I.at .,.,..nr _. to -...t le p1a111Utf•a ,ropoaal u, _..t.r,aot • .._. • ltJ.a a.-.s. ftie ...acU M"nalf ,iot.e4 ~ly b r■...-o1 tM _ -ef -ftl'1-, -wit of-■ llh■ll '-• -111.af -Ciq, of --■n.\lo "° ean• .iaJaUff a "'"'W>C!"• ._wi.\.J.■...-ud • ... lff JUJIISEY COUNTY Aer&n. C . .J._ -•n,-1t1a1•­ Nll.f '-'■--. --...... ... IIIS5e, _,.llat ■, =·:-:r..::.~ ..,etJ, .......... ..._ a. a.it~ .... ,. -, ot,-. ... ... , .• at. llll1ll --............ ,. -· ... ~ &. •tae. apec .... t., at • ..._l l. -a -l&iar allo,po -•-1-1 lafumu.ao, -■ ~ -• ,-.Utal ,___ -u. ~~ ■-,,;;u ..i; ... ' ... lH Prank•• ■--..ry a.le ■, -·· s01n .... ~----'-···-- llfpell.uU. 11i.i.aa111 htenN,/1. . 1-J. A city 1■ act -topp,ld frca oornct.ly ·ec.forcint • aoa.t.D; ordilla.nce -.>bd.that.uad.ing • property· CIWM.r'• nU.ance upon prior iacorz-ect ~urpreut.iou of U. ONUJWLnc.. .,...,.r, 'tM 1.otupnu.Uon of a aoraJ.af ~---------· -~ ····--------·-- 0~ 11 a .-eUca of law tor tM u~~ ~-~~:Of t:M local aonia, actllorit:J, wbil• an.UUe,d to coci.dderat.ion, U aot ba4.t..D9 OIi --· ->. Ja tll1a c:aN the tzial covt wu conect iD rejec:t.iDg tbe eitJ'• 4,atarpnt.at.J.OD of t.be aoa.1.Dg ore!~, u,d th• ooncluioe. of tba t.rial OOQ.rt l:Mt n~•• plam.S aton i ■ • •1.awn and garden• oentar vithi.D _orti..._u..,..u. au-. aea,rd, l:llllton Otis, ~, ud lcott, 3J., uid OCIMiiMNd aad -1~bf--•-· 0•11101 l'ftU:IOII, .TUt.iee. ( lloD,. Willia JIUphy, ft'Ul n,.,._.M\)..,.. •1&iatJ.ff, ftai..k•• lhlr'aery aai.u, 11K:. (Pra=il • 1.·,:rt<: t'.lua acticla to ~1 .. fian4urui City of ....,111• aa4 ib city ......,u, ,:,_. Mdre, t:o ·1••• a -.u.41.Dg s-zs,tt to &1J.ow f'n..U'a to ba.U.d a etoN OIi 1aad it-.. :la Ute cit,. .._ trial ooart ooaclllde4 t.M city•a 6eaial of t.be parait - arWtrar, _, capriciou uwt onu.4 d•f~t.a to iNlM all aee,aae,ary 111&114- ~for tM ocaat.netion of U.. l'l'OPOMd aton. Defendu.U ..,...1- fa,a tM,t .... --:-..-&Ulii. rrau. •• oparatea Nt.ail •tor•• ..tlieh daal •illly 1D lhD, ..,rden, ___ __;.,_.-_________ _ Md plant IQPPliee bat al.ao Nll -craft iaall~ iD Al,,Rb-111', &llied It.or .. , 1aC. Wlied) , -« property bowD •• "1.a11eU.e •• ..... tid.al.cm. loeaud at Uil: intarMCtiOII Of ■i9hM:r •• U ... hiffi .. a...._ b .,....ill•• ai.aaa,aot.a. Al.U.N ani! H & 11 s.valopacmt. C:allpl.Dy, tN & ■) wiaMd t.o build • i.kll•'• Catalog Sbowroca oc l,ot. 2 of that. hbdi.Tllioa Md ~ --,ot.iationa 11.it.b Frank ..... tbe Laun1.Dt '!Tee C-.ter to N iaelwled i». 11D e:span&t4 ...._lopieitt.. Prank 1 a t:MNoaft.er ~ J.ot. 1 of t.-ftbdiTiaiCM:1.. .t.far· .. ~ t:.blt. nsc:m.i.Dg of die-nbdiviaioc 'WIICN1d ~ ..ceaaary a.tore ..,._.lc,paarst ObOld baigin, npr.NQt.atJ.Ye• of .Prank'• ud u., ot.ber lllllsiaaM• •t witb U. uaU:t.ut ci~y MAa,er ~ ot.bar city official.a a.ad M&f"f ...-.n to 41--.a t.1-propoNd ...,_lopaut and .,:,licat.ioD ~or Nace­ &ag. -..,lica.U. ....... bJ &llJ.ed ud ■I ■• .Tal.J ,, 19?,, U ftlOM u.r.. lou 111 t.-•.._i'l'ialclll. 'llteJ' ~ud t;bat haak'a lot M n--4 &a 1-1 u.-u-1..o11 .,. a-1 ,u.1-, -->. 2 '"'" i,el'lli•--• 11, 1 ., -,re tM.D 111 to 111 of Prank•• Nln utionwi6e u. er■ft "lat.a-d; tbt naa.i~ 121 t.o Ml of .. ,... nlata W 1-a.nd ~ ud M.Mr llorti=ltwal prodacu. • 2 a.ctioll 1.20 of die -...111 ■ City C04e u ■u peraitt.K __. 1• ►l Ualted b::LaiNal IOMI ■ •• -4ical aad dental Nrvie..a, -•i.nes• and l'Z'OfnaiClft&l office ■, bo.-pita.la, --.n.itorimu 1.1'4 re•~---•• priffte eluba Dr 1od9 .. , bNvt.y parlor•, VftNRP:••!1 aDd laWII. and t,U1la:D NDUl'a. ao .._f.t.niticm of tbt .... la li.aA. ~ , • a-1 -iacllllle ClpeRU. of •J.Mfta M4 ~• -Man. a-'-".-' a... ...i,, W'nllk'• ~1.au .... •t. wil:ll cd.t:7 n.art .._. .... to --wl.U ,..,_"'--IPruk'a -■t.iau ... fac1Ut1H. ---· -"'-· ~ -ff -••ed ... -pl.&Dlu.ot -.• &'IIPQrt t:Mt ntu'nd t:o l"Dllt.'• u a •w..,. ad ,-.z--a-• non. ~ npon: ---at a Plaaiat ~ -..... la-~ a --- -'"J' of allied at --.r"'9 --111-■ -• ~ -.fad.UU.. ~--,.raticu of~••• l'hat"'••·--C:M a.uaJ.af ,,_. Clletal.'. ,.. -..1--._u .. w1.t.11 _1 .. o1 "'-·• nn -,. -,t, &1• ~ ........ ., -1•• .., Jll"OlhCt •tarlU'r, ..... ., ...... . JWpn,MDt.aUvoa ialOl'aN t.M -1.■llioa ot UII-,-rocm-.... of ...i.. ~lat.ad to mft J.t.aia. JL1,aq RtUfJlt at U. ... ,aaioe ---..r-u.p. __.,,.r, 'WN-• ..._r or citi&oU WO upre--:-4 cone.n ataout 1ac-haNe uatfie M .... • result of U. ~ ~nt, leieh ia ad)aCaat u • ,.."-ti&~ ~ 'l'M --..i.Hiac. r : tu deAJal of t.M: appU.c,at.ioe tor --..cut, 1Nt. ~. auuta t:bat at ao U.. ftrint t:ba proc,Ndiafa ..,. it i.a.to..--ct ~~-.~~ ~~~~~~~:~-:-~~-;··~-~~~. ~ =· -·-· ,, .· •. &)EV DN:pite t.ba IIC"tiOI' by t.bl oc:aa.ia■ioo, applicant.a •• 'the-.,.. pr.-nt.atioo u, the city OOllheil. Tbe CIOUIICU •• proriMd wi~ the .... •tuiab aDd uw the ..-aUUa. A9•in ..-•Uou .. n raistld .about the pen-ent.a9• of craft.a Nl••• and a9aib • nat:i.r of citiuna exprea■ed. coacarA abo1,1;t traffic •• • reault of th• ...,._lo,aent.. At trial witna•M• for rran.k •• taat.ifUd tut while city officbl• ----·--·--·· . . ... ·-· ... •·-. •Ned ati,o1,1;t otber t:Jwus 1nm u,d .. rden -rcbaadiN eo).d, at ao u-did ,u1y­ O:., •utt••t tllat rru.1t•• ai9ht act coaa within the panitt.ed-~~ -~! -~. ••l .,... rrut••·wit.ne;-ac• .-1~~ ~■tified tut at ao tiM ... Pc-Mk'• U.fo....,, ---that it ~d ba•• t.o U.ait iu Ml.ea to ~u t.bat • ..,.. ■t.rictly lawn anl 1u4■:n nlated nor Aid it au.■ pnaiN■ to t.bat effect.. OM wit.MH tMlt.J.Ueid I.bat Prank'• oo.J.d act .... pz,:ai•ed to 11ait iU -rch&ndiN bitmo.N ptOd\lCt au: waa lldlliaiater.S • • ocap&fty-WU. ltiub N"d tJw ~y -=iuld aot operate OM atora le • oapl•taly 41ffennt Caahion Crea it■ other etore ■• Fiaally, .. ell of tM witaeaM• for Prank'•• aot all of whca war ■ N!Floyeea, t.ntified &.bat ia hia opiaion Prank'• .,.. • lawa and 9ardetl cater. ~~-~Noe ·t .. ~.fied, _bowe'Yu. -~t ahe had raiaed clol.dJt• at the council bu.d09 t.bat rraDlt • • -• truly a 1awD and t•rdn. ceni.r beca\lN --·---.-I . of it.a craft aalaa· ~-•_!_~~rkat:).ib• oper•t!on. She teat.ifiad abe uked the city attorney at tbe ... tint """9:ther ,J.t.eaa not plant related OOl&ld bl aold 1e a lawn and 9ardan c-utar ia a 1-1 aooa. "fhe city att.orner · n•~ that th■ city bad the rl9ht to defiM the un •1awm and prclen• cent.er aad that Prank"• would M_w W &bide by U. ~i~--~ft it. aooght a Nildiat pen.it. 111aO ■ fwt.Mr teatUierd ahe H,lwd at t.he lleui■9 that pg Celt •lr 1~. 9.:ardcn. •nd indoor bortitllltural it.oat CIOllld be eold at • laWft and 9arden center and that. rraftk'a repraNnUt.ift■ ■ut.ed u.er IDUld Gide ~ tbe city•• dofi.AitiOD. Ot.hctr wit.DaaNa fOr c.be city, re■ide:nu .t,c, bad atteaded tM hearint t.o prouat the clnoelas-ent, alao taat.Uied t.bat UloH 1D at~ Mid saiNd q•at.J..ou uoat Prank•• im:luaiOD wiUiita t:.lle ►1 (U~t.ed liuiNSa) __., ocaplaiD.int ~t rrant •• ,.... .• lli9h--.olmae rat.ail at.ore am-a pn,p■.rlJ -----···· ) . locaud La a ►2 entail ~iaeH! ~-~!~~~~-.._ -----·- ) &ect.J.oo 1.,00 of t.be --...u1a City Code Uau n puain.ed _. 1a ►J retail '"'81.aeu diat.ricu. ~ t.boN ----u-e U..oriat abopa, prdiat •upply .ad fM4 aur ... ~ allOpe, aporUat...,. at;OrN, Uld ...riatJ -~ ..... ~il u, rraak•a ANNl'94! PM t-Mt rranJr.•• ~• ~lt_.!1~_ ue ~-........ 'I--ClllkP-l':1 1 U7',--u---n-,cu __,. ~•t.iJMJ u. air ...,.u~~__:.:_!!-'~i!_ "!.~ .,~ .~uou:· ~: tut tJN ...._loS,allnt a. subft.Uti&llJ 1a accor..._,_ wit.b t:M -=i-■ pr'eM:;;; to 1:;M ODIIDCill t.bat all raaoMd propan,1.ea N ...,._ nauic-tad ~ u:c::1-■ all -■• aac■pt ~ ,-nu.tt.aid 1a 1::M ►1 --■, tut t.b1 -a,pliCUlt.■ (Al.UM ud ■ I ■, ooat.rllliat.a .H,IOO W t.M-cit.y to Ml.p fi.11,uc,1 • •l.UC-to Ua: t.ra.ffic pc-obl.a ia 'ta area, ... t.Mt • terfom,aDOI .... N fOH,ed: to ... _. Uri&! l.a4acaplal -■ ... letad accord- ,... co plU • .,, aplicit nauieti.OM..,. pl.aoed oa f'raY'• ..ia.. Oil ....... ll, 1!?~~~-~il, wita.lt ~~~. •Uc. .. ~ ~-~-·~-'·~-~-~-~}..!""'"._ .... - •__.!-~..MIL~-!:• .... t .. fta1Uoa uc.l. .... aay ~~~~~-~•~-~Clllt.aral ~ .,._ ~ UIIII .. i, of UIOM otller ~ _. .-~ pr_,.,. ._iM'■, of u.. ~~:l,t . .._,, Mid..._ M>~. ~!~~ of •~ _. pt"Ma~ 8N 19 OU.Z puait.ud ... wi~ ►l wu _,iMd ---·· ~q ao 1111 ate• 111 r C!tf tftt:lla~~w _. •t, f"nnt"■ applied !oi a NJ.141.Dt pvalt. ,fll■ cit.r_!'-i .. ~ per­ .r..lio" ■-day, nf•n"'9 to -~.~r .~.a-1 ~-, ~-l'rank 1 • ood\;.,,~-..;;;~ the pro.,ertr W bffn tk'vd ----":""'.=::-7-:::~===--,--.,..,.=-C-:-::::-:::==-==:-:--l"N:Uictod '\O l•l -■a. h oou.ld 110t 90 L,.-,ck t.o t~-~cil -~ ~k, ■pprovOll for• ,.....1 .. to lt-2, Pr&M 1 1 Ucnfore 111111:ouiyht aa action 1.0 --.,c-1 -' ~ of t:M ~14int .. ~t. .,._ Ul•l covt COM:hliU•••J Ulat tae -u. u,., -•• to -onu-,...---,..uULt9'~ of aot.iee aad U..t ....._t tM ....,...t. rrant•• •~ • •J.m> ,t.O: 1an1en• ___. wit.ah ~ _.ft.1.., Of tM ••l Met.ion of \M ~ia■IIC'■ · l. At t:zl&l h:ut'a ooa,t,e ..... , fir-et, ~t CM .onta aad c:onduct Of tllill: &1t:r official ■, WM..,.. CIDIIIPl•t.e lafoaat.f.oo • it.a -.1 .... , led h'aillt'a 10 Nli .... \:Mt 9-1 &Ol'liDI IIOu.ld N epp,-opri..ata. ~• ...-....S _,.t lt relied °" t.Mt Mlief to 1U .. Ubant ud t.bat t..be tilt:1 m, tMnfon .., as~ frca NDYiftf ta. pa.nu:t. Thi eity ~ ~t it Mid aot: ai■nipn■-"4 it,■ iatU,,Ntat.iOD Of t.M ordi­ --..11ut u.at _.. Ir lt Md. it -.w DOt N ea-tiappa,d fa. applyi111 and ~Ula·~ -.rncU.f ........ , lli~ ~ TUt ·ak"ity of &Jaa t-e•~Y ud ar...-t ceaten.d • the ••b:lppfll i•••, t.be t:rial oocrt. .-... ,1.a4u9 . ..,..,.;_,__ -~---"' • ✓• ~~__r.c~•--~~~~1~ t.llat tbe ci~~-~- 4-nl the pl'rait aut;t .,_ njeet.ed •• ·• ~f 1i.1111. !'he la• in IU.Me•ot.a ta ----------- ~ ·,_.-. / _ ~ .that ~daifU,St.(.at.i.ce oLJ_o~~noa• h a 90!91:'Wflt&l aot a ->-1 ~d•-t&t:y fmlctiom., ~lity can.not be ••topped fra.~t1J -..rc:i.Dg: tbe or4~ ...,_ if U. property Oli'fter nli~ u hh det.l'tant ~ _!t~!~-cit, at;U.. -~ .... rber CO· •• City of lliMeapolh, u,~ ,,. )4 .... 24 110 (UH) 1 IUt• U: nl. Boward •• Vilh9e of Jl:oHYilh. 2,u .u.u. :MJ, io •·•·U 40C (lHSl I The l.luande:r cc. •• City of owatoMA, 22:2 lliae, -• JU, U a.w.24 H4 lltO), 1"1N, .,... U elt, official• .and u-eity oouecil 4id lu4 rru.t.•• --------•--.. ___ -to M:liett that it woald ocai1 withlsi. t.he ••l cluli.tication., if ~t -------~--.. --.·~------------. ~p~~~~ ci~ ~~ 11!'~.t .••~W-d tr~ prohibitt.ng Pr.au'• fna wildiat • amtccmforaia9 bu.aiM:H Oft iu lot. a. ~ eut.rll flQe ■tioa.., than, J.-.-;_;;-~;-t.h,t-;;1a1 eovt cornc:t.ly rej.ete4 t.M city'• int.erpntat.ion of t.h• SOAint ordiu.ne. b boldinf that Pr.U'a h • i.wn all4 9ardeft oaur wit.bill u,.. ••1 claHiUcat.iot.. Tba ,....--. c.itr ~• OIi •~l tut t:.bit 0.C..,_l' lJ, 111', ... nOM.nt W tbe ordiNhCo w.o.e inaU.d few lack of -=-tiC:~.!~ t.Mrefor!. U.ftnC>~. N_ap;,U~ u, excluJit:: rrank'1 f.na t.blt •-t aoae. ,The ch.y cont.ends, ~.-.z, that ·-•-------------=-•-~•T•-•·-•• •--.. ~~~t ocd.t.A&ae• An ~-~~~~~~t~ -~--~~~-~ •.ton. lib l"raM. • • t.bat Mlh .,.. Ot.Ml' Ui.an law-n alMS 9ar4en. 1U.., ~ die tr"i&.1 ··------------,. ___ ....,_,,...------~---~· C'CNl't ..-l'ed. ia av.beUtv.tJ.09 h.s DWII inU:rpret..at.ion for tll&t of tM city. We atatN in Arcadia De-Yeloi-ent. Corp. v: City of Sl.~..:. · ~ ··'-' "'f:7 IU.UL, 221, 22,, 125 ... V.24 H6, ISO (UH), t..Mt •U}f I.be ru-.ooabhneaa c! the aetiOfl of t.Alt city ~11 b at leaat 4ou.btfu.1. or fairly .. Mt.able, • CCNrt. will aot ia~rj.ct 1U Ollfll aoncluioaa •• t.o eore pnferable aetiOftl. • JD Vilh9e of &diN.1 •• .10Mph, 2H IU.ars. H, ll, 111 a.W.24 IOt, IU, 11H2), quota! HI ~• w SUc:.edi .. hen ~"PCt•t.Nly aaid vit.h i-•~ t.c t.M 6acieiona of aunicip,al abd othu to.wn.iental bodies Mi¥1nt t.be c'h;t-y of Nk.1nq deciaiona invohin9 jlldqw,nt an-! 4hcret.ion that. it b act the pt'O'rince of U. court t.o a@at.itutA it• jud9""nt for t:.hl,t of tM: b:ldy a&t.in, auch • clecUiC1'l, bot Mnly ~ .. tAtra.ine vbet .. bu U.t body -.a viUi..JI iu jui8'8.1ct1or., .._. 110t. aiat.&Jr.en H to \:.ha, appU.cable ln, aft.Cl did oot act arbi­ Uar-ily, oppreaainly, or a1raaeonably, &J\d tc det.araine Whet.her uw ~ ooul.d r.aaoM.t,,l~ aappart 0% ,ut.ity t;Jl,a­ Mum.1.uu .•• 1!bli city arvo-that I.Ni aanow IMOPI cf N'lf'1-u;ar_. ... b U-Cad.ia aod ~ r.quired "i& trial ooart to 49far t:o ____ ~ ~__!r• rM-..We Ut~•...!:!_t.iOII. ot •i..,e ..., fe"da.• cent.a:--4a: tM ordi.M-l)ca. .. 60 aot. ~- .... ~ ot rft'l..-lllr a uial c:iout of • cit,-'• l.Jlu:rpntatioa..,.of r ~ Oft.iu.oc-e i.a • .-•tJ.oa of tiJ'at Japn.uion i& th.ta •tat.e. ,t.a .-.r•l nla appear-a t:c> IN C:Mt -&11• Uaaaa of fac:-t Pd 1 .. ialat.iff f10l1.cy1lliDf -..:1a:&oe.s D01ll.4 IN left. co t:Jw-city'• .. tan.i.Mtioo, nbj~ ~1,._to &tlie ..;.. Ulli.ta car .._ •utd.'tnry uid oaprldCN9• at&n,kN, Ute u~u.oc. ~--------------. e,f. • •laU., onti.JIUol &.■ a ~UC of 1-w fM SM ..n. I --~f, !!!:a.A"' of 'ef,S aa4 P~antll'9 °:•. IS, I J Ht, 114..:_1!;.!~~'!!! .._Ulllopfl. ~•• of u. ~u.1 a•tt.blu'1t1, eib •;;.tu .. to --........... -.. e-,!:!L.U.~•--..P!.~....!~ C!f rec," --m._t.bia ib P!!iw· ~ ,._n tJle .-.U0C. ~ ... Utier a --1-W• U -1ieob1o "' ..-1.a ,..,.., -.. ..,_......., of ~ r..,.. 1a tor -- .... \.al ntlliot'ity, •tu. .... r of -,.lyin,c-Ute~---tM heh,. k--.rt. I!· -... -...--•fcM•~~·•w1.a1' --tt•a C'ff"iew to• M:t.nJ.ut.ioft of lllblttllu t.M ct~•• ._i.aioa ... ..ti>itrary and capriclou. ..,...,. Ileen ia ou•• A.Molrilll '-"" ct~•• bet.­ t...u., w .,..u"l',.....1.99 -lty """ tllonfon eo -coetnl -.. ,. ~. • aotad ta ..7oe!fh I.bat it. u for dw mwt to MtM"al.M ••1ttlllH 1M --•t&1 -._. -.,_._ u '° --lioablo JJn,,• ""'lyl.l,f -• t11o _. lloo t11o -l.blUty co --GWnet ~ -· ). "'-U..-l• 'tld.a -.... t:.1ti,am, ta .._\.M:r ._ ~Ml oo.rt _., ncUy ~ U. Jlh:r•N •a..-Mil~• oeta:r • ucl.._ • .,._.. .._ u. \Mt llltJ.Cll i'l:uk'■ w1-.a t=D N.11.4. .. hRa MIOat:. ... aabn e:f _ heak'• .,.cat.ical u-e -,t. ia ~-.,._n i.a • ~-~t l'nat'~ a11a ,..i..,,uy "--.. -""°'"""' -.__ 1.11 --. • i-__. ------11.-...... ·i--..-~--clti, ---i.a..-..ot ___ l _____ .......,,.._ tdlte Ui&l oovt.. h flai4uril l'hlM 'a to ._ a 1-... ..,.._ Olllata', ........-u, ....a. .... t:N:t t:1te: .a~•--. tMt ... an• ---.. .U.... ca. l:ri.&1 ..n.•• Ultar,retatJ.oe -..id .. -..,u . ......i n.lea of -tzwt..j,a i....s llllllfllW't '1D W.a i.at.upret.&ii.aa~--.. n.nt, ..u ....-.u, acn .. • ... -;;;;-.~~---lu ~7iU ·· _...,. -..ui,. ll!• C!!H,_ W. --0., ... JatfleU, Iii)-• 1&1, .11' a.w.1'4. s,, (1N2t. J Weraoo., a.ric~ lAY of Jor1i91 I 11.lt (Id M. 11'7'7) (M.reb,af~ A,l!i,6u110n)J 1 a.tbkopf f 1.0J. '1le ten •i...-, ...,_ • Nnter ltult --• mot .... to aaclUM atoNa that priurU.y N11 lllon:J.­ Ce.ltval it. ... kt Mll Mae other iUIU aa well. llonoftr, Praak'a •.fl.Ma Ma, ha1Uu with ne..i1i ~Uiot b.nui, taaUfiM Uef 1IIOQ1d oce.1hler l'ruk'a • 1--Md .. l'den o..t.ar. lecc:iM, 1r0niag-ordiur,e-" abola14 M o:iiu~ at.r10Uy apwt u. c1~ UM prop,erty ow,,er, J M4HIOJl I .16.IJJ 1 .. UIMlpf I t.OJ. C1euly, t.M cera •i.vn ud .. r~eenu,r 1a ~ of •arS.0. .iat:.erpret.aUoaa that an-aon or lea ■ reatzieUw .ta aeope. .. au.t ti.Ye Wllitbt to tat iaterpret.atioo t.b&t, ...,,_l• atJ.11 witkia u., OCID.f"--9 of U. ~. U 1.Nat n ■trie-tiw apoa the rlfhta ~f U. pnpe;l"tJ OWMr 'IO .-. Ilia bad •• be •'-•M•. e. t.rial oovt•• OOftcluaioo tlt&t ht.Dk'• ta • 1.aW!l and 9ardcn eeJtte'r cloea not 4.iat.ort tho •tat.uta and 9ivca proper eUoct ~ tau pd.neS.,,l.o. a. son1.ng ordi~t alv•~• N. con!_id~red .b li9ht of _!ta adar­ ~~l"t ~u,, 1ovty •· city of Milntato, 2n tu.nn. 1oe, ,2 •·•-24 ss, ntso,, kt U tbb ca~~ --.l.Nt.i.Ollo ~~. lef_ialtit~••. int.erst ~-~ 4ict.at.4t • '!°!'~-1'.!~lt. 'l"M clty OOQt..-da 1 Pruk 1 • H...-01•• .. ~ ~ o~--­ nt.a.U Nt.lrt, -1cb t. IIO-t. paraitt.ed la i--1 but.la peaaitt.ed, iutu.d, 1a a-2. St 1a &r"fUltd, al~b oot a put of t.M r-=ord, t.lN:t a-1 _.. a.re .,, .. •itud t.o wt u affen MbMea nai~t.ial ar.u Utid t1.aU-ecale oc:e- -.reia1 u..u. t11aa d.tJ aou• c.bl.t u. pusttt.4 uea .a.. a a-1 ._. ..-. aot. larf•.....,,1-ret.aU .... , ..,.,.. ... f'N"Ut.~ a-2 .... tacl'llda ut&bliab­ ... u \bat .. u auy it.all M1ild. by rraat•a. ~ 1'he ci.t:J oontenda, U.nfON, tll.at it-• ~ to caec:laam t..bat ftuk'• ~14 .on properly be looatN 1a a a-2 ..uU aone ud i• aot vit.M.a 1:M spirit of Ute ►1 -.... aile it U" flll"ON,l,17 U'N tM.t h.rfre NU.il ft.ONl8 .. r,: -ant. to ..... u.Nd ...-ra1.11 to •-1 -..., IIO'tbiAt ua t.he a-1 ..e-t.ioe tmcludea iuy. nUn i... _. ,aN&D -tu.. rt ia h'aal'a .1 .. u.s opant.J.av llt:fl•, dae •~• appt"Olldi OCIIIIPl.aiMd of bf t:M-oo•wH.1 &aid nai­ -.U, Mt. ttr.a, Uaf.Mil ,..._ et' ftMJ' Ur.ae 1Mffl AN ..,-4,u tta.1, Ur.at la 'tM eetal _,. •f U. ctt:y. .,._, it. --■ aot oca,UaftM ,:be ...... af tllo --CO 1-1-11!.W. t11o ........ •i.w. ... .......,. -ta;r•StoNlb.etbiat'a. cart.aialJ, ._ allllla.ia19t.rai:.iw i.•~tion of ta.. odi&Pee U •tlUed t:o .....-et., -.i t:JN_t .iat.arpret.ation ia not. ~nua~-:-p&rucwla.rly =.--;;~~~~;; f~ ;_;-;·~-u. ~~;-;~ w1ti-1u- !-~ .. u-_!f •_ia-""" --•--•t.J.1 _ ..... ,.,... -.i-•Y .,..._nn ...-u•. ~~~!_.~ ~~~t to "6tfi• u. bra . .,._. -..c:U'• at.tllllpt. •Md• ~fiait.i.ob. of U. tera t:o U. .... ~.~.o ~ tMt tt felt 1M or-4~!_ U. ~-~~~• •-~ _, ~-1111.11a .._ c!.rc-aauaeea an IIOt Ci~~~~-•-~ ,~uty •'!Ut 1---.itbt • 0. city'a pnNllt bt.npntatioa t.Ma at.pt. otbu- ~..!!1-k.~• -Mld, tM>nfOft, -U.t U. ,t.rJ.&1 ONl't. Nn'C:IC'tly ..-19'11d rr.-i:•a U a 1--Uld ..,..._ oe-.ter •ldt.J.a tM ..,.1 MeUoD of ue aooi1111 edlNtftOe .... atu.aw. t.M ordu ....-1.l.ial Ula ct~, -u .... u ~•Nr'Y M1141 ... pealU.. &ff~- WINONA COUNTY -•. a.it. .•. ~ .•. llolwl.a lpocialtf Co .• -· Ql.ulu -1uu •• Jan')' lc:bwt.ltttr, &:lala I. llolfa, •-~••• llohlOUI lpeca1t7 CD., .... _,.llata, ..,.;... .. , .._.... .. _,,,C.J. .. tel' ............ ..... .... t.e~.au,-., • .._. MatU.aictt:.b,~,~h ·-----.... ··•· .1 .. '1111n-., nauttffa, ------~-------- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: James Cosby, Village Administrator Mike Scheller, Building Inspector March 13, 1973 Variance -James Ogland -2611 Casco Point Road /£~I( Jim Ogland has applied for a variance on a lot, legally described as Plat 43660, Parcel 2000, 2611 Casco Point Road, for purposes of constructing a home thereon. The area is in R-lD zone, half-acre, 100' width and is serviced and assessed for water and sewer. The lot does not meet the acreage or width requirements. It has roughly 18,000 sq. ft. and the width at the building line would be approximately 75'. Mr. Ogland owns the site to the north having a residence on two acres. The properties to the south have approximately the same size as the subject property. He states he will obtain permission from the neighbor adjacent to him to the south. He owns the property to the north. , N 0 L Sfi! rN',_ P.<t-~\(,_ fl:,\ L ~v._..._ V\\,.-.J,JP·\ou\c~\ \~M~U \ PlAT or= SvR\)E.~ faR­ -.JArY\E.!':. W. O~LAt-Ji> S<:..AI_S 111 = 30 1 IJ/'\TC. 3-10 • 1 ~ -··11 '._____.;, MINUTES OF A WOR,K SESSION HELD MARCH 13, 1973 The question of assessments on the park land was discussed and we still do not have all of the sewer and water assessments on the land which would be dedicated to the Village. The Planning Commission is.:under the impression that the.Freshwater Biological Institute will pay all assessments levied against the land they own. We must have verification on this item. 4. It appears that this item would not be inconsistent with the area land use; however, all members should visit the site to verify this fact. This division looked fine if Lot Bis combined with contiguous land to south. This item is before us again because of a mistake in the original presentation which, because of no survey, indicated site conditions which were not true. It was felt that a · survey should be provided before consideration by the Planning Commission. Other considerations which must be checked by staff. Our plat maps indicate that Mr. Lofrano's property stops at the railroad property line but his site sketch indicates that the railroad is an easement that comes way onto his property. Our concern here is if there is really a hardship which would justify this action and does this division really fit the area. Do we want to establish less than half-acre lots in an area that still has undeveloped land? After looking at the proposed building elevation, we noted that the addition will be only 1'3" from the property line and that the roof actually hangs over the property line. Another factor that must be considered is the two-story building almost against the property line which will have an effect on the adjacent property in terms of blocking view and which is more urban in character than what we might like to accept. Proposal seemed unreasonable to those present. This jite is assessed for sewer and water and our only concern is that if we allow this variance will the development be consistant with area land use. ~II Page 3 I.D.S. PROPOSAL (Continued) DIVISION & VARIANCE Betts DIVISION Ankeny VARIANC"B Lofrano DIVISION & VARIANCE Howell VARIANCE Potas VARIANCE I ~ Ogland ~ ' ,. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 19, 1973 that there would be no problem in getting a variance since he has his neighbor's approval so he has already purchased all the materials for construction. Van Nest moved, Gasch seconded, that Mr. Potas' request for a variance.be denied because of insufficient setback. Motion, Ayes (6) • Nays (0). Since the lots to the south of the Ogland property are small, Mrs. Gasch felt that a variance in lot area would not be unreasonable. Van Nest moved, Gasch seconded, tha·t if Hr. Ogland's lot had been owned in single separate ownership and not owned by the individual on Lot 142 to the south, the variance should be granted. Motion, Ayes (6) -Nays (0). Chairman Poisson moved, Gasch seconded, that the meeting be adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Motion, Ayes (6) • Nays (0). Respectfully submitted, Dexter Harston Zoning A4ministrator ~ II .Page 4 VARIANCE (Continued) VARIANCE Ogland ADJOURNMENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: James Cosby Dexter Marston March 23, 1973 Variance -James Ogland !=~I/ The Planning Cprnrnission conditioned their approval on the fact that the person that was selling the land was not the owner of Lot 142 to the south. The previous owner did own additional land in the area, but it is separated by Casco Point Road. f" ' ( iHNUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 26, 1973 t~ssengale moved, Butler seconded, to grant preliminary approval of the division and variance of Samuel Betts of 1945 Fagerness Point Road, pending a Registered Land Survey being submitted to the Village within six months of todays date. In addition, the Council feels the variance is warrented due to two assessed units of water being applied to the property, the unusual condition of the land arid the nature of the surrounding property. Motion, Ayes (4) -Nays (0). Massengale moved, Butler seconded, to approve the division of Michael Ankeny, subject to combining Parcel B to Lots 5 & 6 to the south~ Motion, Ayes (4) -Nays (0). Butler moved, Massengale seconded, to approve the variance of Joseph Lofrano, 3365 Crystal Bay Road, with the condition that a Registered Land Survey be submitted to the Village within six months of todays date; that a one-foot minimum exist between the garage and rear property line and that a four-foot side yard setback be maintained. The Council wished to restipulate the points made by the Planning Commission in its September 18, 1972 Minutes. :-.lotion, Ayes (4) -!_'lays (0). Massengale moved, Welsh seconded, to deny the division and variance requested by Keith Howell for North Arm Drive and Loma Linda Avenue. Motion, Ayes (4) -Nays (0). Ronald Potas had requested by letter that he be taken off the Council agenda for tonight and be put on the agenda for April 9, 1973. T11e Council concurred. Butler moved, Wel~h seconded, to approve the variance for James Ogland because a hardship was recognized in that this property is the only property which is developed on either side of it and the development of this property would conform to the development to the s out:;1. Motion, Ayes ( 4) -Nays (0). The proposed contract with the Village Engineer for the sign survey and replacement project was referred to the Village Attorney. ~ I/ Page 2 DIVISION & VARIANCE Betts DIVISION Ankeny VARIANCE Lofrano DIVISION & VARIANCE Howell VARIANCE Potas VARIANCE Ogland ~ CONTRACT -ENGINEER '.t26'f?~/~~ ;;!/41 :3 £ /ri -1 4d Std 7t"s- •it :}P;/ll ;20 /)7-2 3 -0003 2? Ooo.d , I ( :.1 J.2-t-/'ro ~#kt7=J /4/~ ir Lr✓ ;;:~/✓ ~ i i iy/2 ch /~/-;~ ?cJ fl ~ 6' ~ i~ cLti2 ~ ~ c<JL/&_ I k-1-s~~re cJ~o-z~~ I l I ti ':i !: I!; --ti swty line o?----;--;,- Lei 134, S,Pring P;:rrk -- ('AT't J f'i"."<1 tf:> 0 ~• for Charles 2:. D,ll:z, rt I --·r-r- ~>--Jn Gnvcrmaent Lot 4, .Section 20-117-2] ./' ,}' ./ l' "'I., ~ f~ l h~r"!by r.ertify th1.lt ,i;-,,1... • _.\1',;,. 1f."/v thi~ 1s a truP. arid <'orrr;ct rApresentation of a inir•v11y of the ' 0 ~(/\ ..... 1••' bounchriP,s of th3t o:trt of r:;overrnrrnt L,i:lt 4, S~c-t1.on 20, TovnAhip 117 NorV1, Rnnf'.c> 23 '-,Pst of the 5th /0 Soc:! saJ-r. r'rinrtD"il '',:irtd1.'lri, '11:l{.;rri't--r-Jd Rs fr.11ows:· flrginnlnl_? on the shore of i.,akP :-'.innct::ink'.'1 at the point or· tntArser:ti,;n of ~,qirl shore with ,:, line dr9wn .... b I;) \') 's,. VI ("\ <::, prtr"lllPl "with 1u:d 90 feet SouthW':'l~terl\·, meas1;r•"d .r-it rigrit irnt:lPs, from the SouthwePte-rly H.ne of f..ot 131+, Soring P3.rk; th"!nCif! South"'/3.f"t •r nar>-1lli:cl with sr.dd SoutJ-n.iPsterly Une of Lot lj/, and its Southr_;,.rnt- t:-r.-l;: !:')('tr->r::ifon b the So,..ithwesterl-' line of' Ci.~co 0 ()tnt Ro"d (forn:13-i:).V 0rono ~venu<"!); then<"'e Southerly a.lont: said So:.1thwesteT'ly Une of Casr-o Poir:t '6011d to its ;,o lrit o: int,Jrfloction "with a line drrnm OONllel "1ith and 150 ff?et South­ 'Wr?sterly, measured 9.t right anF,;l···r, frrm tl,r: .:o:rth\.l,'':'.tPrl" 1'JW of s•d.d L,ot l3!1 •ind its South'.J:nterly extens.i.on; thence Northwesterly p.1.r'lll-el with s1.H •~;o,11'\-1we::t"lrl;1 line of Lot lJ/,. <tnd its Sout!1t,'Jsterl,v '.➔XtAnsion to said r'l10r0; thence Nr:irthciast~rly alonr; said share t0 t.hP pr-int c>" h8f:inrin.c 1 1 '.lJH) U 10 1.o,ntlcn of' rill buil:iinr,s, i any, t.herr.::,:n, and 1111 ''1dl,l.e encroachments from or or c.rd(' l•\l 0 ·i. S<'.''.110: l" = L.0 1 Dtt t,.1 : €,-2]-?0 Cr0rrlon -q_ Coffin Rec. No. t'J)1)4 0 : Irr:-n m•1rker l.,irnd S1ir·v~y,:,r and Pl:,nn1n· Y•i tu11: NGV;)-19?.9 Lonf L,nk"' ~ Finnesota <tt,(0 Pl.Al. ""0COC...... l Q 11t '5 TA• Tl-4( CDVl'T r ~( 5TAT[ JrtTSAJC) \ J }(~ (Spltt~G 5~ ~~ ~g @ ,,,, 41ttvtvc ,-o tv k -4 P,4/il( 8,4y) ~ Ol N. l/2 SEC.20, T. 117, R.23 oo(~lEUW~w JUN ~ l9lll @ SCAL£, INCH r 200 FEET . ·; f-~ C 1 ·;-~ T.!i7, F:~. ; ... :~. 200 ~ "''' 22,180 Au eo. RD.-·N&.-t~-----------• I i.;.•'\ l..4kc fc◄1tAt,4"s ® ti::!i ~ ~­. ,1; 200 400 lttl CID 011 ORON!J I !t 11•0 ' 17 61 42 ~11~_-,_j ·'i~-, ,,su : c,-.J :~ .. ~ z ~-. . V '>~l 11! ll -11., ,,,.' W 2684 e;1 Au. .. •o &:; '! . • z.,, 0, (4 '.' ~~ 2 !hatt 11111 OI p., 19 7 1 Atu•I Photo 8,4.-) I ,, ' , .. ·, " ,,. R,1.,9, MO.. ' . .. ~ .. ~ ,,ue L . " ·~ .. \\.''. ; Mltvtv~tiO IVk4 . . ~ ® ---- l /' @ COUNTY SURVEYOR HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN. . ., .. • ,t .r'----...__ ,.,, v/' $ J,· I J .. 0 s l'0 •-J rr~ ~-- f-~ ,,J (j :.u tJj