Laserfiche WebLink
of cases goiLng' back to Zyl vs., Crystal,, supra would , be 1�eversed <br />in fact,, if -not, 3.n ,n, name <br />The Court of Appeals reversiled the Trial Court based on evidence <br />and arguments that were not heard by the C ity Counc *11 The Court of <br />Appeals made a fundamental error when it said Petitioner I s develop- <br />menti would bell successful only 'if other landowners agreed to the conliIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />struct ion of a road through their residential lots As pointed out <br />in the Planneir's Reports, the construction of this road would be a <br />burden on Petitioner and a benef 'it to the intervening landownera <br />who�se unusually deep lots could not otherwise be developed, as • <br />their south onille-half because of the i r narrow frontage in County <br />R�. =M� ilk <br />0 1 D <br />these reiasoins the - Petitioner seeks an Order granting review <br />of the decision of the Court of Aplpl6als.l <br />Dated.& August 4, 1988* jOlHN E * DATJ& <br />oil E. Daubiney #2123 <br />hol*st Tower <br />Peter Street <br />St laul, MN 55102 <br />(612) 21124-4345 <br />Attorney for Petitioner <br />Alvin <br />