Laserfiche WebLink
<br />grade level patio, but rather the above grade deck, which was <br /> <br />setback 26.5 feet from the shoreline. <br /> <br />Plaintiff's partially <br /> <br />completed deck thereby increases the substandard dimension by 9.5 <br />feet. <br /> <br />PLAINTIPF'S ABOVE GRADE DECK CONSTITUTES AN <br />BXTENSION OR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING <br />USE. <br /> <br />The Shoreland Management Ordinance incorporates, by reference, <br /> <br />any provisions of the rest of the Roseville Zoning Code which would <br /> <br />provide greater restrictions. <br /> <br />Roseville city code § 18.050. <br /> <br />Roseville's non-conforming use statutes restrict more than just the <br /> <br />horizontal dimension or setback. Roseville's non-conforming use <br /> <br />statute prohibits any expansion or extension, of a non-conforming <br /> <br />structure, not just a horizontal expansion. Roseville city code §§ <br /> <br />11.020 and 11.050. <br /> <br />The Minnesota Court of Appeals states: <br /> <br />The purpose of non-conforming use ordinances <br />. .. is to achieve the eventual eradication of <br />non-conforming uses or structures while <br />avoiding waste and unfairness. Allowing <br />structures to be altered so as to exacerbate <br />the offense to the general community <br />undermines the purpose of zoning laws <br />generally and pre-existing non-conforming law <br />specifically. <br /> <br />SLS PartnershiD v. Citv of ADDle Vallev, 496 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Minn. <br />App . 1993), <br /> <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court in County of Freeborn v. Claussen, <br /> <br />295 Minn. 96, .203 N.W.2d 323 (1972), and more recently in SLS <br /> <br />PartnershiD v. City of ADDle Valley, 511 N.W.2d 738, 742 (Minn. <br /> <br />1994), further explains that municipalities need not allow the <br /> <br />expansion or enlargement of nonconforming uses. The "public policy <br /> <br />8 <br />