Laserfiche WebLink
"whether the statute's language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous." Am. Family fns. <br />Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). If the law is "clear and free from <br />all ambiguity," the plain meaning controls and is not "disregarded under the pretext of <br />pursuing the spirit." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2008); Phelps V. Commonwealth Land Title <br />Ins. Co., 537 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1995) ("Where the intention of the legislature is <br />clearly manifested by plain unambiguous language ... no construction is necessary or <br />permitted."). The legislature has also stated that it intends the entire statute to be <br />effective. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 ("Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect <br />to all its provisions."). <br />This case is about a structure that does not conform with local land use <br />restrictions. We have recognized that a local zoning ordinance "may constitutionally <br />prohibit the creation of uses which are nonconforming." County of Freeborn v. Claussen, <br />295 Minn. 96, 99, 203 N.W.2d 323, 325 (1972). As to "existing nonconforming uses," <br />however, these "must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent <br />domain." Id. But a local government "is not required" to permit the expansion of such <br />nonconformities. Id. <br />Subdivision le is consistent with these principles. We read the subdivision in its <br />entirety and give effect to both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Minn. Stat. § 645.16; <br />(Footnote continued from previous page.) <br />words, the scope of the nonconformity would not be expanded if Liebeler's request were <br />granted. The City nevertheless concedes that the variance sought an "expansion" for <br />purposes of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le, and we treat it as such for purposes of this <br />opinion. <br />