pf_02614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

behind that doctrine is to increase the likelihood that such uses will in time be eliminated due to obsolescence, exhaustion, or destruction." Roseville city code Chapter 11 would prohibit any extension or expansion of a non-conforming structure. The Kadrie home is a non- conforming structure. The kitchen addition and the surrounding deck clearly expand and extend that structure in violation of §§ 11.020 and 11.050. County of Lake v. Courtney, 451 N.W.2d 338 (Minn. App. 1990) and Freeman v. County of Rice, November 4, 1994, Finance & Commerce Appellate Court Edition, attached, present facts very close to those at issue here. In Courtney, the cabin was setback only 50 feet from the normal high water mark of Lake Superior, in violation of the 75 foot setback provision. Courtney applied for a building permit and variance to construct a new two-story house on the same property. The variance request was denied because the building setback was still insufficient. He went on to remodel the existing cabin without a building permit or variance. He removed most of the walls and roof of the structure and started to build a new structure on the existing foundation pillars and timbers. The qround coveraqe area was not expanded although the roof line was higher than the prior structures. The court determined that this new higher structure was certainly an enlargement of the nonconformity and, thus, in violation of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance. 451 N.W.2d at 341-43. 9