Laserfiche WebLink
attorneys' fees. Good Neighbor brings the instant motion for partial <br />summary judgment declaring that Plaintiffs' proposed use of the subject <br />property is permitted by the zoning ordinance of the City of Little <br />Canada and /or Jinn. Stat. §462.357, Subd. 7, and permanently enjoining <br />Defendants from refusing to issue a building permit to Plaintiffs. <br />Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' motion and ask for summary judgment in <br />their favor. • <br />Plaintiffs base their case on two arguments. First, they <br />urge the proposed. use is permitted by the Little Canada Zoning <br />Ordinance. Second, even if the Ordinance purports to ban Good <br />Neighbor's proposed use, the Ordinance must give way to the superior <br />authority of Minn. Stat. §462.357, Subd. 7. In my opinion, the proposed <br />use conforms to the Little Canada Ordinance, and Plaintiffs are en- <br />titled to partial summary judgment on that ground. As a result, it <br />is not necessary to examine Plaintiffs' second argument. <br />Good Neighbor proposes to build its facility in an area <br />which is zoned "R -•1 ", "Single Family Residential ". Section 905.020.A <br />of the Tittle Canada Zoning Ord, ir.once provides that "Single family <br />detached dwellings" are a permitted use in an "R -1" zone. Section <br />902.O10. F.51 defines "Family" as: <br />One (1) or more persons each related to the other <br />by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care, or <br />a group of not more than three (3) persons not so <br />related maintaining a common household and using <br />common cooking and kitchen facilities. (Emphasis <br />supplied.) , <br />The issue thus presented is whether the proposed use is <br />"foster care" within the meaning of Section 902.010.A51. The zoning <br />ordinance do m not define the phranc. In In re Estate of Norman, <br />209 `:inn. 19, 293 N.W. 63 (1940), the Court, quoting Giebster's <br />