Laserfiche WebLink
see also /n re Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985) ("A statute will be construed <br />so as to give effect to all of its parts."). In paragraph (a), the legislature, with certain <br />exceptions not relevant here, prohibits a municipality from ordering the removal of <br />nonconformities.5 Further, the legislature has given property owners the right to repair or <br />replace a nonconformity so long as they do not expand the nonconformity. In other <br />words, as long as the property owner does not expand the nonconformity, she does not <br />need municipal approval to take corrective or remedial action on the nonconformity. But <br />under paragraph (b), if the property owner seeks to expand the nonconformity, the <br />municipality may, by ordinance, permit the expansion. <br />Consistent with the authority the legislature granted to it in paragraph (b) of <br />subdivision le, the City has an ordinance that addresses the expansion of <br />nonconformities. See Minnetonka City Code § 300.29(g)(1). This ordinance provides <br />that "an expansion of any non -conforming use may not be done without first obtaining a <br />variance." Id Liebeler's proposed addition to her detached garage required a variance <br />because she proposed to "occup[y] space within a non -conforming area that was <br />previously not occupied ... vertically." Id. <br />Krummenacher argues that because state law is superior to municipal law, the City <br />cannot grant a variance pursuant to its own ordinance if that variance violates state law. <br />5 The statute allows the municipality to require a nonconformity to be discontinued <br />when it "is discontinued for a period of more than one year," or "is destroyed by fire or <br />other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building <br />permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged." Minn. <br />Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a)(1) and (2). <br />E <br />