Agenda - Council - 03/24/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TO: Lloyd C. Schnell, Administrative Assistant, City of Ramsey FROM: William K. Goodrich, City Attorney L~)~ DATE: March 13, 1981 RE: Ronallo requesting Building status of part of the E½ of the NE¼ of Section 4, Township 32, Range 25 On March ll, 1981 you asked my opinion concerning the possibility of the SE¼ of NE¼ of Section 4, Township 32, Range 25 also known as parcel 1850 Plat E9204 receiving a building permit. You stated that the SE¼ of NE¼ is a 40 acre unimproved tract of land which has access to a County Road No. 64 only by way of a 66 foot wide tract of land running the entire width of the NE of NE of Section 4, Township 32, Range 25. This distance would be approximately 1320 feet. This 66 foot wide parcel is a part of the larger 40 acre tract and has been combined as one tax parcel. It pro- vides the only public access to the 40 acre tract. You should be advised as follows: The East ½ of NE¼ of Section 4 was originally an 80 acre parcel of record. It was sold in 1964 to Jack J. Ronallo and wife and Richard C. Ronallo and wife. Please refer to the attached survey for the following number and letter references. Parcel 3, under 5 acres in size was created ls 4 and 5 were created in 1974. To my knowledge, none of in 1975. Pa~ . . ~--~ ~,, ^~ Ramsev aoproval. Attached are the above SUDOIV1SIOnS rece~wu ~,~ v. j r copies of the recorded documents which created the subdivisions. After all of the subdivisions as above described, the remainder is Outlot A (the 66 foot wide tract). Ordinance 73-5 of the Township of Ramsey required that no building permits could be issued unless the parcel abutted a public street. The zoning ordinance required that the minimum lot width at that time was 200 feet. The Township and subsequent City interpreted this to mean all lots must have a minimum of 200' on a public road to be buildable lot. This was also perpetuated when the City codified its ordinances, and 'was made explicitly clear in the City's ordinance 79-15. It is therelore my opinion that since the subdivision which created Outlot A were done contrary to State law and City ordinance, and since Outlot B (the 40 acre tract in question) does not have the required 200 foot road frontage, Outlot B can not get a building permit without City Council approval by way of a variance.