pf_02901 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

JUL-~j-~~ tKl ll:q~ f ~lt.lit.L, tlKILL rHX NU. ol~ jj~ o~~J t'.U~ -- \ - , \ in the zoning ordinance. where rfeight is loaded and unloaded. The only exception to this .. is a, smaIl dock facility in the northwest comer of the Indianhead property which has been leased to other companies. TIP wi11 demolish these dock !acilities, because it has ~o use for them. Botb companies repair and maintain the equipment on the property. Indi~ead als() contracts tractors, trailers and drivers to its customers, which TIP does not dQ. TIP doe:s not lease out any of itS premises to others for storage of vehicles. It is anticipated TIP will store 200-250 trailers on' the property. On average! there is approximately 6-7 trailers that will come and go from the premises on a daily basis. I In our opinion, TIP's use is substantially the same as wbat Indianhead has been doing .for more than 40 years, but somewhat less intensive in certain respects. Therefore, under Section 1011.02 of the Rosevil1e Zoning Ordinance, we believe tbat TIP is entitled t9 legal non-conforming use status, just as Indianhead has been since the rezoning in 1986. Our initJtal researcb indicates that there are no cases in Minnesota that involve when a successor use]r is entitled to the continuation of legal non-conforming use status. You may want to look at the following cases outside of Minnesota which we believe support our opinion: .Em;lara v. Ci", of OlIver City. 294 P.2d 1003. 1006 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1956); Kramer v. .IQym of Montclair, 109 A.2d 292 (NJ. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1954); Cit" of J'~well Junction v. .Q.u:lningham. 439 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 1989). In Minnesota, Hawkins v. TalbQ~. 80 N.W.2d 863,,867 (Minn. 1957) holds that a change of ownership of property is irrelevant to the analysis. ~.alm. County of Lake v. Courtney. 451 N.W.2d 338,340 (Minn. Ct, App. 1984), whkh holds that Minnesota courts will strictly construe zoning ordinances against municipalities and in favor of property owners. Roger, based upon the information provided with this letter which was not available to u.s at our meeting in August, we would ask tbat ~he City issue TIP a compliance l~tter indicating it is a legal non-conforming use under th~ Roseville Zoning Ordinance. If you feel that the City needs additional information or would like to set up anothe~ meeting to discuss it further, we will be more than happy to oblige. Please give me a call after you havc~ had a chance to review the above. JEBlrab EncJ[osure cc: Gary Gandrud Marc Frohman