Agenda - Council - 10/26/2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Response from DNR in Regards to Current Regulations on Existing Lots of Record As I indicated earlier, this is a messy question of interpretation as, in addition to the City's ordinance, Wild and Scenic River Rules, Critical Area standards and the recently amended provisions of MS 462.357. Subd.le(2)(f), (Nonconformities) all come into play. I have consulted with others who have been involved with these programs much longer then I, and we offer the following guidance: We have a differing opinion as to the relevant point of time that the lot must be in separate ownership. The language in your ordinance is similar to that found in the Wild and Scenic River Rules (6105.0110.Supt.1), and we have consistently interpreted that provision of the W &S Rules to mean that the lot must be in separate ownership at the time ale or development. While not a perfect fit, we think that the preferable way of dealing with this situation is to utilize the provisions of MS 462.357. Subd.le(2)(f) (which allows for sale /development as a separate parcel if the lot is at least 66% of the lot dimensional requirements and meets the other requirements of the statute), in combination with 6105.0110.Supt.1 (which refers only to lot width requirement...not area). It appears that the lot in question would meet the 66% of lot width requirement and could be approved as a separate parcel under that somewhat convoluted approach. - Alternatively, we would not object if the City chooses to deal with this particular lot as a variance proceeding. We would also suggest that you inventory how many similar contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership may exist on the River. If it looks like there are many others like this out there, you may want to consider amending your ordinance to address this more cleanly and comprehensively. We would be happy to work with you on that.