Agenda Packets - 1993/11/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

masters degree lrs of graduate t was granted ,rdee' two young A io school and are half of the is fitting that -Ica while she is egree and seek - the condition or n suggests that to delay for an ion of her edu- -he work force. ne parties' mar, bera'a relative- : sound health, m of two years .1 advanced de- tward of mainte- years affords -fete hen studies 2loyment. Un- •es an award of anger than five Ion. According - court with & ,on of the main - years to five ,warded to nei. ed in part, and ,ppellants, ,nd the City pondents. neaots. -ract vendee ;udpment that HOOPER v. CITY OF ST. PAUL Minn. 139 Ot W Tar H.Wad ❑s IMlnn. 19141 use of each of two structures as single- family dwelling constituted valid noncon. forming use under zoning code. The Dis. trict Court, Ramsey County, E. Thomas Brennan, J., declared that use of premises for any purpos, other than occupancy by single family was unlawful, and plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court, Cane, J., held that continuous use of property as dual family residence for approximately fiv, years prior to change in zoning elasaifi. cation from duplex to single-family resi. dence entitled owner to lawful conforming use status under zoning code. Reversed. 1. Zoning and Planning C-323 Uses lawfully existing at time of ad- verse zoning change may continue to exist until they are removed or otherwise discon• tinued. 2. Zoning and Planning c-84 Residential zoning ordinance may can. stitutionally prohibit creation of uses which are nonconforming, but existing noncon. forming uses must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain. 3. Zoning and Planning 0-323 Statement in general provisions of zon. ing code that "It is the intent of the code to permit legal nonconforming ' ' ' uses ex- isting on the effective date of this code or amendment thereto, to continue until they are removed but not to encounge their survival" creates presumption that use is legally nonconforming use if it is demon. strated by clear and convincing evidence either that use was established pursuant to building permits issued by city or that use had been in existence continuously for at least 20 yearn prior to effective date of rezoning. 4. Zoning and Planning a-323 Continuous use of property as duel family residence for approximately five years prior to change in coning elmsifica- tion from duplex Eo sincl -fmnly rpci"noe entitled owner to lawful conforming use status under zoning code. S. Zoning and Planning a}271 In context of land use planning, lawful use refers only to those uses which comply with existing zoning status. 6. Zoning and Planning 9-271 Violations of ordinances unrelated to land use planning do not render the type of use unlawful. Syllabus by the Court 1. Continuous use of property as dual family residence for approximately five years prior to change in toning classifies. tion from duplex to single family residence entitled property owner to lawful conform• ing use status under provision of St. Paul Zoning Code. 2. In the context of land use plan- ning, lawful use refers only to those uses which comply with the existing zoning sta- tue. Kenneth E. Tilsen, St Paul, for Appel- lants. Edward Starr, Jerome Segal, St. Paul, for respondents. Heard, considered, and decided by the court en bane. COYNE, Justice. Plaintiffs David and Mary Brewer, as fee owners, and Alan Hooper, as contract vendee, instituted this action for a declara- tory judgment that the use of each of two structures situated on property commonly known as 387 Pelham Boulevard in St. Paul as a single family dwelling constitutes a valid nonconforming use under the Saint Paul Zoning Code. They appeal from the judgment of the Ramsey County District Court declaring that use of the premises for any purpose other than occupancy by a single family is unlawful. We reverse. The property in question is a large, irreg• ularly shaped lot on which two separate ntrvctutes—a main house and carriage