Laserfiche WebLink
<br />offense to the general community undermines the purposes <br />of zoning laws generally and the pre-existing <br />nonconforming use law specifically. <br /> <br />SLS Partnership v. Citv of Apple Valley, 496 N.W.2d 429 (Minn. App. <br />1993) . <br /> <br />It would defeat the purpose of the Zoning Code to only <br /> <br />restrict construction that horizontally encroaches on the <br /> <br />lakesnore. Adding an appurtenant deck to a substandard structure <br /> <br />is increasing the dimensions of that structure. <br /> <br />In Countv of <br /> <br />Freeborn v. ClaussenJ the court stated that n[a]n addition to an <br /> <br />existing building is clearly an extension or expansion of a prior <br /> <br />nonconforming use." 295 Minn. 96 (1972). Had the City Council <br /> <br />only intended to restrict construction that horizontally encroaches <br /> <br />on the lake shore , it would have stated that in the Code instead of <br /> <br />prohibiting increases in the general dimensions. <br /> <br />Public policy requires that Roseville's substandard use (or <br /> <br />non-conforming use) ordinance be upheld. <br /> <br />The purpose of such <br /> <br />statutes is to eventually eradicate such uses. <br /> <br />In Claussen the <br /> <br />court specifically recognized this need and stated, "It is not <br /> <br />required, . . . that preexisting non-conforming uses be allowed to <br /> <br />expand or enlarge. The public policy behind that doctrine is to <br /> <br />increase the likelihood that such uses will in time be eliminated <br /> <br />due to obsolescence, exhaustion, or destruction. This in turn will <br /> <br />lead to a uniform use of the land consistent with the overall <br /> <br />comprehensive zoning plan." .,¡g. at 099 (emphasis in original). If <br /> <br />we adopt Mr. Kadrie's reasoning that non-conforming uses can be <br /> <br />5 <br />