Laserfiche WebLink
Page 18 WATER TALK Summer/Fall 1495 <br />C®>tnr~ C®>r>rn~>c C®>lnu-~ C®u~n~>r C®un>~ O®>t~n~>r C®>ln>l-~ O®>i~~>r <br />a <br />b <br />b <br />b <br />b <br />IT IT COURT UPHOL S PROHIBITION F SALE F <br />CONTIGUOUS LOTS <br />SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION NEGATES EFFECT <br />by Ed Fick, DNR Shoreland Hydrologist <br />Hubbazd County District Court upheld Hubbazd County's decision to prohibit the <br />sale of nonconforming contiguous lots held in the same ownership in a decision flied <br />on Aprll 7, 1995. The owners, Lloyd and Joreen Lundstrom, filed the case when <br />Hubbard County denied them a variance to sell one of the two adjacent lots located <br />on Lake Belle Taine. <br />The Lundstrom's bought two adjacent 100-foot wide lots at different times. The <br />substandazd lots became nonconforming when. the Hubbard County shoreland <br />ordinance was amended in 1991 to include the revised statewide standards for the <br />management of shoreland areas developed by the Department of Natural Resources <br />(DNR) in 1989. The revised ordinance stated-that nonconforming contiguous lots <br />must be combined to meet the minimum lot size requirements before they can be sold <br />or developed. The minimum lot size for Lake Belle Taine, a Recreational Development <br />Lake under DNR's classification system, requires a lot width of 150 feet and an area <br />of 40.000 squaze feet. The Lundstrom's applied. for a variance to sell their <br />undeveloped lot but the application was denied by the Hubbazd County Boazd of <br />Adjustment. The Lundstrom's then sued the County and enjoined the Minnesota <br />Department of Natural Resources in the lawsuit filed in the District Court. <br />The court found. that the county's shoreland ordinance does not violate the <br />constitutional standazds governing the taking of property without compensation or <br />providing equal protection under the law. The court determined that while the <br />plaintiffs can demonstrate a loss in the value of the undeveloped lot, the diminution <br />in property value cannot, by itself, establish a taking. <br />In summary, the court decided that although the ordinance has "some negative <br />economic impact" and "frustrates plaintiffs' distinctive investment-backed <br />expectations", other courts, including the Supreme Court, have upheld land use <br />regulations even when they "destroyed or adversely affected recognized real property <br />interests" in cases where there is a rationally related legitimate government interest. <br />DNR's Shoreland Management Program Coordinator Ed Fick feels this court decision <br />significantly strengthens this part of the shoreland management program and <br />commended Assistant Attorney General Don Kannas, representing the Department <br />ofNatural Resourcesfor the State of Minnesota, andAttorneyJay Squires, representing <br />Hubbazd County, for their work on this case. <br />».oondnued on page 19 <br />However, Fick reports that the Minnesota State Legislature with the concurrence of <br />the Governor subsequently enacted a law, Senate File Number 1444, which sets aside <br />the findings of this court. The legislative act states "...the counties of Crow Wing, <br />Hubbard, Cass, and Morrison may allow the sale or transfer, as a sepazate pazcel, of <br />a lot within shoreland ...that is located wholly within the Mississippi headwaters <br />f~ <br />f~ <br />f~ <br />f~ <br />fj <br />q <br />f~ <br />~~>~®C, ~.uTr>t®O ~a~.u®C, ~.uT<a®O ~a>tuu®O ~.u>r>t®O ~a>~®C, ~>ta®O <br />