Agenda Packets - 1993/11/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OV 04 '93 16 16 HOMES & GRAVEN WE 1 HOOPER v. CITY OF ST. PAUL Minn. 139 masters degree Cue ns 353 x.Wsd las Nam. 19a4l use of each of two structures as single- entitled owner to lawful conforming use 1 era of graduate family dwelling constituted valid noncon- status under zoning code. k was granted forming use under zoning code. The Dis- ;,rties' two young trict Cour, RamseyCount 5- Zoning and Planning08;,27108;,271t ad in school and y, E. Thomas :are half of the Brennan, J., declared that use of premises In context of land use planning,lawful is fitting that for any purpose other than occupancy by ' refers only to those uses which comply ice she is single family was unlawful, and plaintiffs with existing zoning status. ace while and seek- appealed. The Supreme Court, Coyne, J., 6. Zoning and Planning X271 the condition or dualeld that continuous use of property as Violations_of-ordinances--unrelated to n suggests thaty residence for approximately . use land use planning do not render the type of to delay for alt five years prior to change in zoning classifi- .ion of her dtr cation from duplex to single-family resi- `tnlawfuI. she work force. deuce entitled owner to lawful conforming Syllabus by the Court use status under zoning code.ne parties' mar- 1. Continuous use of property as dual ,'hara's relative- Reversed. sound health, family residence for approximately five m of two years years prior to change in zoning classifies- n advancede- I. Zoni tion from duplex to single family residence ng and Planning aD323 entitled property owner to lawful conform- sward of mainte- Uses lawfully existing at time of ad- ing use status under provision of St. Paul 'e years affords verse zoning change may continue to exist Zoning Code, ,lete hes studies until they are removed or otherwise discon- ployment. Un- tinned. 2. In the context of land use plan- :es an award of ning, lawful use refersonly to those uses anger than five 2. Zoning and Planning x414 which comply with the existing zoning ata- .ion. According- Residential zoning ordinance may con- mss' court with dr stitutionally prohibit creation of uses whichion of the main- are nonconforming, but existing noncon- Kenneth E. T4lsen, St. Paul, for appel- years to five forming uses must either be remain or be eliminated by use of eminent lo ents. +warded to nei- domain. Edward Starr, Jerome Segal, St. Paul, for respondents. 3. Zoning and Planning e'323 fed in part, and Statement in general provisions of zon- Heard, considered, and decided by the • ing code that"It is the intent of the code to court en bang permit legal nonconforming ' * uses ex- COYNE,Justice. fisting on the effective date of this code or - amendment thereto, to continue until they Plaintiffs David and Mary Brewer,as fee • are removed but not to encourage their Owners, and Hooper, as contract survival" creates presumption that use is vendee,instituted this action for a declarer • legally nonconforming use if it is demon- rosy judgment that the use of each of two iypellants, strafed by clear and convincing evidence structures situated on property commonly either that use was established pursuant to known as 387 Pelham Boulevard in St.Paul find the Citybuilding permits issued by city or that use as a single family dwelling constitutes a pondanta, had been in existence continuously for at valid nonconforming use under the Saint least 20 years prior to effective date of Paul Zoning Code. They appeal from the rezoning. judgment of the Ramsey County District nesota. Court declaring that use of the premises 4. Zoning and Planning'a 323 , for any purpose other than occupancy by a Continuous use of property as dual single family is unlawful. We reverse° family residence for approximately five The property in question is a large,irreg- ,.t.ract Vendee years prior to change in zoning classifies- ulariy shaped lot on which two separate 'judgment that tion from duplex to sin►le-fanu'ly rouieldnoe G ctu�•es—a main house and carriage