Laserfiche WebLink
OCT -22 -1993 1220 FROM SWEENEY BORER & OSTROW TO LITTLE CANADA <br />Mr. Joel R. Hanson <br />October 22, 1993 <br />Page Two <br />P.03 /03 <br />amortization provisions, of which the Minnetonka provision is a <br />prime example. The theory behind this legislative device is <br />that the useful life of the nonconforming use corresponds <br />roughly to the amortization period, so that the owner is not <br />deprived of his property until the end of its useful life. In <br />addition, the monopoly position granted during the amortization <br />period theoretically provides the owner with compensation for <br />the use of some property interest, since the period specified <br />rarely corresponds precisely to the useful life of any <br />particular structure constituting the nonconforming use." <br />Since the Naegele case is still the law in Minnesota, it is <br />our opinion that a majority of the courts would find that the <br />Little Canada ordinance, with its five year amortization <br />schedule, is enforceable and would require that the <br />nonconforming use be terminated. <br />If anyone has any questions relative to this matter, please <br />contact the undersigned. <br />TMS:gc <br />Yours very truly, <br />SWEENEY, BORER & OSTROW <br />Thomas M. Sweeney <br />Page 7 <br />