My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-12-1977 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1975-1979
>
1977
>
01-12-1977 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2013 2:27:42 PM
Creation date
4/9/2013 2:26:28 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
WARREN SPANNAUS TELEPHONE <br />(612) 296 -6196 <br />STATE OF MINNESOTA <br />OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL <br />ST. PAUL 55155 <br />ATTORNEY GENERAL <br />December 13, 1976 <br />Clayton. Parks, Jr., Esq. <br />City Attorney, City of <br />Little Canada <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />St. Paul, Minnesota 55117 <br />Re: Minn. Stat. § 462.357 subd. 7 (1975 Supp.) <br />Dear Mr. Parks: <br />In your inquiry of November 18, 1976, you ask whether <br />Minn.. Stat. § 462.357 subd. 7 (1975 Supp.) is restricted in <br />its application to non- profit foster homes and group homes, <br />and you also ask whether the proposed use of a profit- making <br />facility would violate the Little Canada Zoning Code. <br />It is my opinion that the cited statutory section <br />applies equally to profit and non - profit foster and group <br />homes. The statute makes no distinction between profit and <br />non - profit organizations, but limits its application to a <br />home that is state - licensed and serves six or fewer retarded <br />or handicapped persons. It therefore appears that a profit - <br />making home is entitled to be considered as a single family <br />residential use under state law so long as the other qualifi- <br />cations are met. <br />Because I have not examined the Little Canada Zoning <br />Code, I specifically express no opinion whether the proposed <br />use by Nekton., Inc., violates that Code. However, considering <br />the information you have given me, there is the implication <br />that the state statute and zoning code are inconsistent. I <br />would respectfully suggest a careful examination of the code <br />in light of the statute and my comments in the preceding <br />paragraph. <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.