Laserfiche WebLink
11 That a conversion of an existing apartment building to <br />condominiums is not a "subdivision" withing the meaning of <br />Minnesota Statutes Sec. 462.358 and defendant's Municipal <br />Code Section 2101.050 Subsection 4 is therefore void. <br />12. Plaintiff's conversion of said apartment building to condominiums <br />did not cause an increase in the number of people living <br />in Little Canada and therefore no new burdens were added to <br />defendant's park, recreational or other facilities. <br />13. Little Canada's Municipal Code Section 2101.050 Subsection 4 <br />is not applicable to plaintiff; that if said subsection is <br />applicable to plaintiff it imposes a requirement upon the <br />condominium conversion process which is not imposed upon <br />a physically similar development under a different form of <br />ownership and that said subsection is therefore void because <br />such discriminatory requirements are prohibited by the <br />Minnesota Condominium Act, Minnesota Statute Sec. 515A.1 -106 <br />Subdivision (a); said Minnesota Statute Sec. 515A.1 -106 is <br />made retroactive by Minnesota Statute Sec. 515a.1 -102. <br />14. That defendant's Municipal Code Section 2101.050 Subsection 4 <br />is void because it takes plaintiff's property without due <br />process of law, contrary to the Constitution of the State <br />of Minnesota and of the United States. <br />WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the court render its declaratory <br />judgment: <br />1. Determining the construction and validity of said <br />Little Canada Municipal Code Section 2101.050 as <br />applied to the facts set forth in this complaint. <br />2. Determining that plaintiff owes no park charges or <br />land in any amount whatsoever under the provisions <br />of the Little Canada Municipal Code. <br />3. Determining that defendant is wholly without authority <br />to administer or enforce Little Canada Ordinance <br />Section 2101.050 Subsection 4. <br />4. Determining that said subsection is unconstitutional <br />and void. <br />5. Determining that defendant has continued to attempt to <br />enforce said park charges against plaintiff in violation <br />of Minnesota Statutes 515A.1 -106 and that such violation <br />made it necessary for plaintiff to commence this action <br />and to incur costs and attorney's fees herein and that <br />this is an appropriate case under Minnesota Statutes <br />Sec. 515A.4 -115 for the court to order defendant to pay <br />17 <br />