08-26-2015 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT B 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 613012014. In the city's letter, staff concluded 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: O I contend that .partial occupancy as a method of justifying a lapse of use determination is an untested standard in Minnesota case law. My searches 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, City of St. Cloud v. Voigt, 388 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). In this case, the City of St. Cloud brought forth charges for violation of the zoning code an 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 duplex/double 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 so long as It maintains the physical characteristics. o I continued to occupy my unit of the duplex as its owri half, and did not make attempts to expand my living space Into the other side, or make any alterations to live or use the structure as anything other than a duplex. o I had began the process of renovations to the unoccupied portion of the duplex h an attempt to remodel and rehab the interior with the Intent to continue to use and rent out the space as a duplex:. o The argument that vacancy of one unit of a multiunit structure constitutes a lapse of use is dangerous bocausc when applied equally to other multi -tenant structures the argument creates a slippery slope. For axarnple, 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 9