Laserfiche WebLink
replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not <br />including expansion .... <br />(b) A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose <br />upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate <br />nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. <br />(Emphasis added.)' Krummenacher argues that because the plain language of paragraph <br />(a) of subdivision le prohibits the expansion of any nonconformity, the City's decision <br />allowing Liebeler to expand her nonconforming garage must be reversed. The City <br />argues that subdivision le(a) restricts the ability of property owners to expand <br />nonconforming uses, but that under subdivision le(b), a municipality is permitted to <br />allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance. <br />The construction of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. Clark v.. <br />Lindquist, 683 N.W.2d 784, 785 (Minn. 2004).4 To interpret a statute, we first assess <br />' In its brief, the City cites the 2009 version of section 462. 357, subdivision le(a) <br />which reads: <br />Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including the <br />lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the <br />adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, <br />including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or <br />improvement, but not including expansion .... <br />Minn. Stat. § 462.357 (Supp. 2009) (new language in italics). The "except as otherwise <br />provided" language in this version of subdivision le(a), however, did not become <br />effective until May 22, 2009, which was after the City granted the variance. See Act of <br />May 21, 2009, ch. 149, § 4, 2009 Minn. Laws 2025, 2028. We therefore do not rely on <br />this version of the statute. We apply the 2008 version of subdivision le, the version of <br />the statute in effect when the variance was granted. <br />4 Liebeler did not propose to expand the footprint of her garage, and it is undisputed <br />that even as remodeled the garage would still be 17 feet from the yard line. In other <br />(Footnote continued on next page.) <br />7 <br />