07-22-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Staff and Members of the Council, I respectfully submit to you an appeal of the "lapse of use" determination city staff had submitted to me In letter dated 6/30/2014. In the city's letter, staff ooncluded that half occupancy of the duplex structure (for over a period of a year) constituted an intent to discontinue nonconforming use of the property. I ask the mayor and city council to reinstate my property located at 2955 & 2977 Arcade Street as a legal nonconforming use residential duplex/double bungalow. There are some findings that I believe warrant this action: I contend that partial occupancy as a method .of Justifying a lapse of use determination is an untested standard in Minnesota case law, My marches yielded many cases relating. to the issue of lapse of non -conforming use, however very few where that status change was applied to a structure at a time in which it retained half or greater occupancy In a multi -tenant configuration. I'd like to direct the city to a 1986 Minnesota Court of Appeals case, State, 01ty of St. Cloud v. Volgt, 388 N.W,2d 790 (Minn. Ct, App, 1986), 'nth's case, the City of St. Cloud brought forth charges for violation of the zoning code. on the defendant for unlawfully failing to occupy one unit of a non conforming duplex for a period longer than a year. That charge was subsequently dropped before trial. I feel it is relevant that, the City chose not to pursue those charges, The arguments I'd make in my favor as to why I think it is a poor standard are as follows: o The structure was no less than 50% occupied at all times, o A duplextdouble bungalow is defined first by physical characteristics (one structure, one lot, shared wall, divided 'living spaces, etc) and secondarily by occupancy. My argument here is that a duplex Is still a duplex regardless of who Is living in it se long as It maintains the physical characteristics, o I continued to occupy my unit of the duplex as It's own half, and did. not make attempts to expand my living space Into the other side, or make any alterations. to live or We the structure as anything ether than a duplex, o I had began the process of renovatione to the unoccupied portion of the duplex in an attempt to remodel and rehab the interior with the Intent to continue to use and roil out the space as a duplex. o The argument that vacancy of one unit of a multiunit structure constitutes a lapse of uao Is dangerous bec.ausc when applied equally to other multi -tenant structures the ergumentcreates aalippery elope. For example, if one unit of a Triplex In an R1 zone Is vacant for over a year does that mean the structure loses its lawful nonconforming status? Would the property owner of the structure need