pf_02901 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

JUL-~j-~~ ~Kl ll:q~ J ~lt:.ut:.L, tjKILL ~HX NU. bl~ jj~ b~~l t'.U~ ..... \ - .. \ in the zoning ordinance. where fteight is loaded and unloaded. The only exception to this .. is a small dock facility in the northwest comer of the Indianhead property which ha's been leased to other companies. TIP will demolish these dock facilities, because it has JlO use for them. Both companies repair and maintain the equipment on the property. Indi~ead also contracts tractors, trailers and driverS to its customers. wbich TIP does not do. TIP does 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 win 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"lCSpects., . Therefore. under Section 1011.02 of the RoseviUe Zoning Ordinance. we believe that TIP is entitled t9 legal non-conforming use status, just as Indianhead has been since the rezoning in 1986. Our initial researcb indicates that there are no cases in Minnesota that involve when a successor user 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: Endara v. Ci~ of Culver City. 294 P.2d 1003. 1006 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1956); Kramer v. .Town of Montclair. 109 A2d 292 (NJ. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1954); Ci~ pf .l~well Junction v. a,tnnin~am. 439 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 1989). In Minnesota, Hawkins v. TatbQL 80 N.W.2d 863,867 (Minn. 1957) holds that a change of owne1'!hip of property is irrelevant to the analysis. ~.ils.2. County of Lake v. Courtney. 451 N.W.2d 338,340 (Minn. Ct, App. 1984), which holds that Minnesota courts will strictly construe zoning ordinances against municipalities and in favor of property owners. Roger, based upon the information provided witb this letter wbich was not available to us at our meeting in August, we would ask that ~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 have had a chance to review the above. JEB/rab Enclosure cc: Gary Gandrud Marc Frohman