Agenda Packets - 1993/11/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEYER v. ILLINOIS FARMERS INS. GROUP Minn. 141 cam u rsa ta.wsd NI IMl a.epp. Issa) ` aro lawful without prohibiting the continu- the City argues, its use as a residence was ante of other existing uses. unlawful both before and after the zoning St. Paul Zoning Code 4 62.102, subd. 5, deals with nonconforming usee and clause 8, which was added to subdivision 5 in 1980. refers specifically to existing two- family residential use: Subd. S. Nonconforming uses of struc. tures and land. If a lawful use of a structure, or of structure and land in combination, exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment to this code, that would not be allowed in the district under the terms of this code, the lawful use may be continued so long as it re. mains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: (8) In any R-1, R-2, R,3, and R-4 Die. met, an eurisling two-family residential rue shall not be nonconforming as to the use of structure and land, and may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or al. tered provided the minimum yard set. back requirements of the district in which it is located are met and that the maximum percentage of the lot occupied by the main building does not exceed that allowed. (emphasis added). I4) it is undisputed that the carriage house has been rented and used continu. ously as one of two separate residences on the property since 1971. It is also undis. puted that until 1976, when the property was rezoned to R-3 single family residen- tial, this two-family use conformed with its duplex zoning classification. According to the provisions of § 62.102, Subd. 5(8), the continued use of the carriage house as a second residence on the property is a can. forming use which may be reconstructed or altered to the same extent as any other conforming use rather than a disfavored nonconforming use whose survival is die. couruged. The City contends, however, that the use of the carriage house as a residence was nevdi lawfully established because the Brewers did not obtain build ing )Krmits for either the original construe tion or the post-bre reennslructiun. Hence, change. I5,61 The general rule that only exist. ing lawful uses are entitled to due process protection as nonconforming uses is direct. ed primarily to the protection of uses estab- lished in compliance with then existing zon. ing classifications. County of fYeeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99, 203 N.W.2d 323. 325 (1972)• Violations of ordinances unrelated to land use planning do not ren- dcr the type of use unlawful. See Carroll v. Hurse, 103 III.App.3d 984, 59 In.Dec. 557. 481 N.E.2d 1344 (1982); Board of Se. lectmen of Wrentham V. dfonaon, 855 Mass. 715, 247 N.E.Zd 364 (1969). II the reconstructed carriage house fails in some respect to meet the requirements of the building code, the City must seek its remc dy in the enforcement provision of the building code. The City's remedy does not lie in denying the owners the right to con. tinue the existing two-family residential use of the property, a use permitted under the zoning code in effect when the use was established. Reversed. o yroewunmu r Patricia MEYER, Appellant, V. ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE CROUP and Hovey Meyer, Respondent No. CI-844274. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. Aug. 21, 1984. Action was commenced by woman in. lured in one+:ur collision while a pwsenger in family car seeking underimuranre ben« N