Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chapter 11 of the Roseville City Code generally addresses <br /> <br />nonconforming uses. Section 11.010 defines a nonconforming use as <br /> <br />"any use or arrangement of land or structures legally existing <br /> <br />prior to the enactment of a Code provision prohibiting such use" <br /> <br />(emphasis supplied) . <br /> <br />In the section titled "Existing Structures or Uses", the Code <br /> <br />provides that although nonconforming uses may continue, they "may <br /> <br />not be extended, expanded, [or] intensified. . ." Roseville City <br /> <br />Code § 11 . 020 . <br /> <br />Roseville city code § 11.050 also prohibits <br /> <br />expansion of non-conforming structures using similar language. <br /> <br />Relevant portions of the Roseville city code are attached as Ex. 9. <br /> <br />ARGUMENT <br /> <br />RES JUDICATA DOES NOT PRECLUDE LITIGATION <br />OF THE PRESENT ISSUES <br /> <br />Plaintiff's prior acquittal on criminal charges arising out of <br /> <br />the same operative facts as those underlying this civil action does <br /> <br />not constitute res judicata as to the present legal issues. <br /> <br />The difference in degree of the burden of <br />proof in criminal and civil cases precludes <br />application of the doctrine of res judicata. <br />That acquittal on a criminal charge is not a <br />bar to a ci vil action by the government, <br />remedial in its nature, arising out the of the <br />same facts on which the criminal proceeding <br />was based has long been settled. <br /> <br />In re Kaldahl, 418 N.W.2d 532, 535 (Minn. App. 1988); quoting <br />Helverinq v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 397 58 S.Ct. 630, 632 (1938). <br /> <br />The burden of proof in criminal cases is proof beyond a <br /> <br />reasonable doubt. <br /> <br />State v. Pazderski, 352 N.W.2d 85, 87 (Minn. <br /> <br />App. 1984). <br /> <br />The standard of proof in civil proceedings, unless <br /> <br />5 <br />