Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2002

Home

244 Page 2 -- April 10, 2002 Z..]~. Variance -- New restrictions imposed on shore land property Owners of two or more small lots are required to sell them together MZNNESOTA (02/26/02) -- Carlson owned shore land property in Douglas County that was planed Lnto five lots in 1979. In 1990, the state dectared shore land property was a state concern, established new restrictions, and imposed these restrictions on counties. The pertinent part of the new Douglas County ordinance provided "if, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any indi- vidual lot does not meet the 20,000. square feet minimum requirement, the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of.land for the purposes of sale or development." Carlson sold lot 1, which was Only 8,3.00 square f~et. The county refused to record the deed because the lot was undersized. Carlson then applied for a variance to create a nonconforming parcel. It was noted Lot 2 was also under- sized and was listed as having 8,700 square feet. The Board of Appeals denied the request for a variance, and Carlson did not file a timely appeal. Instead, seven months later, she sued, asking the court to compel the county recorder to record the deed. The court granted judga'nent to the county. The lower court decided Carlson could not challenge the refusal to record the deed because she failed to timely appeal the denial of her variance application. The court also determined the county had the authority to enforce the ordinance against Carlson. Carlson appealed. DECISION: Afllrmed. The county did not have to record the deed. The court saw no distinction between the issues raised when she applied for a variance and her later declaratory-judgment action. Both challenged the erfforceability of the ordinance,, and both requested the same relief -- that is, for her property to be excluded from the effect of the ordinance. Therefore, she should have appealed the county's decision instead of suing, and the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. Citation: Carlson v. Chermak, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C8-0J- 1475 (2002). see also: Graham v. Itasca Coun~ Planning Comm., 602 N.W. 2d 46J (1999). Livestock -- Ordinance prohibits livestock on non-agricultural land Residents sue to prevent ci~. fi'om impounding their livestock /VLISSOURI (2/26/02) -- On July 12, 2000, the city adopted an ordinance which placed certain restrictions on the keeping of animals within the City limits. The subject ammals were referred ro as livestock, non-domestic, and non-house- hold pe~s. I I I I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I