pf_02614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

'1 i November 4, 1994 This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as pl'OYided by MinD. Stat. § 480A.08, sabeL 3 (1m) Rice County Forsberg, Judge District Court Nos. CX-93-666 & eX-93-764 Richard Freeman, James R. Martin 607 North Central Avenue Fan"bauJt, MN '55021 Appellant, vs. County of Rice, Jeffrey D. Thompson Rice County Attorney Meredith A. Erickson Sr. Ass't Rice County Attorney Rice County Courthouse 218 N.W. Third Street FaribauJt, MN 55021 Respondent. Filed November 1, 1994 Office of AppeUate Courts Considered and decided by Forsberg, Presiding Judge, Norton. . Judge. and Harten. Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION FORSBERG, Judge (Hon. Bernard E. Borcue) On appeal from summary judgment, appeßant contends the dis- trict court emd in determining he is not entitled to a variance to improve bis property. The record shows the court properly granted summary judgment because the county board of adjustment did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when denying appellant's application for the variance. We affirm. . FACfS In June 1992, appellant Richard Freeman purchased labfront property on French Lake in Fanòault, Rice County, Minnesota. The home on the property is "nonconforming'" to the county zoning ordinance because it is located only 45 feet from the ordinary high water level of French Lake; the county ordinance requires lakefront homes to be set back at least 75 feet from the ordinary high water puark of the lake. Rice County Zoning Ordiuauce § 514.009. Ap- pellant filed an application for a variance from the zoning ordinance in order to modify bis house because a natural waterway that nms beneath the northern portion of the house has eroded the house's foundation. Appellant proposed to demolish the 12' x 20' section on the north side ofbis house, construct a 16' x 14' addition to the second story over the existing garage. and build a new roof on the house. ' After appellant presented bis proposal to the county board of adjustment, the board denied the varianc:e for two. reasons: the extensive remodeling appellant proposed was inœnsistent with the intent of the Rice County Zoning Ordinance, and the remodeling far exceeded the "minorrepairorroutineßlII.~nœ" permitted under the zoning ordinance. Appellant sought judicial review of the board's decision. After a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found the board's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. and granted the county's motion for summary judgment. DECISION On appeal from summary judgment, we mustdetcrmine whether any issues of material fact exist and whether the district court emd as a matter of law. WartDick v. Moss &: Barnett, 490 N.W.2d 108, FINANCE AND COMMERCE APPElLATE COURTS EDmON 112 (Minn. 1992). Appellant contends the district court erred because he is entitled to the variance undcr certain provisions of the zoning ordinance. We disagree. Although a legislative policy-making decision is reservcd to the [county], subject ooly to the requirement that it be neither arbitrary nor capricious, the interpretation of an cxisting ordinance and thc manncr in which thc ordinance is to be applied to thc facts are for the court. SLS Partnership v. City of Apple Valley, 511 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. 1994). When this court interprets zoning ordinances, we apply three rules of construction: First, courts gencœl1y strivc to CODSUuc a !e1Dl according to its plain and ordinary meaning. ... Second, zoning ordinances should be construed strictly against the [coun- ty] and in favor of the. property owner. ... [Third,] [a] zoning ordinance must always be considered in light of its underlying policy. Frank's Nursery Sales, Ine. v. City ofRoseville. 295 N. W .2d 604, 608-09 (Minn. 1980), quoted in SLS Partnership, 511 N. W.2d at 741~ and cited in County ofLaJœ v. CourtDey, 451 N.W.2d 338, 340 (Minn. App. 1990), pet. for rev. deoied (Minn. Apr. 13, 1990). Rice County Zoning Ordinance § 505.001 sets forth the county's policy regarding nonconforming structures such as appellant's: It is the intent of this Ordinance to permit these noncon- formities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. Such uses of land or structures are declared by this Ordinance to be incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involvcd and will be managed according to applicable state statutes and this Ordinance. The Minnesota Supreme Court has acknowledged a similar policy in other cases regarding nonconformities: [A] municipality need not allow the expansion or enlarge- ment of preexisting nonconforming uses··· [;] the "public policy behind that doctrine is to increase the lilœlihood that sucb uses will in time be eliminated due to obsolescence. exhaustion, or destruction." SLS Partnership, 511 N.W.2d at 742 (quoting County of Freebom v. C1anssen. 295 Minn. 96, 99, 203 N.W.2d 323, 325 (1m». To further this policy, the zoning ordinance limits work on nonconforming property to "[m]inor repairs and routine main- tenance." Rice County Zoning Ordinance 505.003(c). Without question, appellant's proposed reconstruction goes beyond the plain and ordinary meaning of "minor repairs" and "routine maintenance." Appellant seeks to demolish the 240- square-foot room on the north end of his home, repiace the tiles around the culvert to allow the natural waterway to run its course, fill in the hole in the ground, build a 224-square-foot addition onto bis second floor above the attached garage, and build a new roof to eliminate the leakage problem from the fiat roofhc has now. Even when viewed strictly against the county, the definitions of repair and maintenance cannot extend to the major remodeling at issue here. In addition. Rice County's underlying policy is mereiy to allow nonconforming structures such as appellant's to stand, not to take action to help them.SUIVÎve. The requested variance in this case would contravene that policy because appellant's plans would extend the life of bis house considerably. Appellant contends, however, that another section of the or- dinance would allow him to obtain the requested variance. Rice County Zoning Ordinance § S05.003(d)(1) provides: A nonconforming stIuctuJe · · · may not be rebuilt if it is destroyed, by any cause, by fifty (50) percent or more of its estimated market value. excluding land value, as deter- mined by the County Assessor. Appellant argues this section allows bim to rebuild his house because less than 50 percent of it has been destroyed by the natural waterway. We cannot ac:cept such an interpretation. The plain language of this section serves the purpose and intent of the or- dinance not to preserve nonœnfonnities. Out of this provision prohibiting major rebuilding. appellant seeks permission to demolish and reconstruct a portion ofhis home. Such an interpreta- tion contradicts the plain language and intent of the ordinance relating to nonconformities. 41 AI opiions siIce 1989 (3 be fæœd. Cal333-4244.