Agenda Packets - 1993/11/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• MEYER v, ILLINOIS FARMERS INS. GROUP Minn. 141 CM.u 353 N.W2d 141 (Mbu*.App. 1984) i E } r are lawful without prohibiting the continu- the City argues, its use as a residence was .Flt 1' ante of other existing uses. unlawful both before and after the zoning ! i change.St. Paul Zoning Code § 62.102, subd. 5, deals with nonconforming uses and e claus 8, which was added to subdivision 5 ' E5,6l The general rule that only exist- ' 1980, refers specifically to existing two- ins lawful uses are entitled to due process family use; residentialprotection as nonconforming uses is direct- ed primarily to the protection of uses estab- 1 ' tures and land If a lawful use of a lished in compliance with then existing son structure, or of structure and land ing classifications. County of Freeborn V. cicz -295 Mu' � . ,-�99, zos�u.w.2a mbinati coon, exists at the effective date 823, 825 (1972). Violations of ordinances 1 f of adoption or amendment to this code, unrelated to land `i use planning do not ran- • that would-not be allowed in the district ; ,; I under the terms of this code, the lawful der the type of use unlawful. See Carroll use may;be continued so long as it.re- N Y03 Il1.App19 984, 59 I11.Dec. mains otherwise lawful, subject to the 1 lectrnen of n a,E.2d 1844 (1982); Board of Se- ainsin g provisions: Wrentham Monson, 855 '1 ! • . . + Mass. 715, 247 N.E.2d 364 (1969), If the ; i (8) In any It-1, R-2, R.g, and R-4 Dig- reconstructed carriage house fails in some respect to meet the requirements of the I trict, an existing two-family residential building code, the City must seek its reme- use shall not be nonconforming as to the• dy in the enforcement provision of the a use of structure and land, and may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or al- building code. The City's remedy does not lie in denying the owners the right to - ' tered provided the minimum yard set- g COa back requirements of the district in time the existing two-family residential which it is located are met and that the use of the property, a use permitted under • maximum percentage of the lot occupied eO�g code in effect when the use was by the main building does not exceed esstt abblished. that allowed. Reversed. (emphasis added). (4] It is undisputed that the carriage o Srirwptpesritlu 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 resider- . `i• tial, this two-family use conformed with its ,t duplex zoning.classification. According to Patricia MEYER, Appellant, •the provisions of § 62.102, subd. 5(8), the V. continued use of the carriage house as a ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE second residence on the property is a con- GROUP and Harvey Meyer, . forming use which may be reconstructed or Respondent altered to the same extent as any other conforming use rather than a disfavored No. C1-434-0274. ononconforming use whose survival is dis- Court of Appeals of Minnesota. yr couraged. The Coy contends, however, Aug. 21, 1984. that the use of thi carriage house as a residence was neveir lawfully established because the Brewers did not obtain build- Action was commenced by woman in- ing permits for either the original construe- jured in one-car collision while a passenger tion or the post-fire reconstruction. Hence, in family car seeking underinsurance bene• I 1 .