6.4. HANDOUTS 08-16-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

see also In re Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985) ("A statute will be construed so as to give effect to all of its parts."). In paragraph (a), the legislature, with certain exceptions not relevant here, prohibits a municipality from ordering the removal of nonconformities.5 Further, the legislature has given property owners the right to repair or replace a nonconformity so long as they do not expand the nonconformity. In other words, as long as the property owner does not expand the nonconformity, she does not need municipal approval to take corrective or remedial action on the nonconformity. But under paragraph (b), if the property owner seeks to expand the nonconformity, the municipality may, by ordinance, permit the expansion. Consistent with the authority the legislature granted to it in paragraph (b) of subdivision 1 e, the City has an ordinance that addresses the expansion of nonconformities. See Minnetonka City Code § 300.29(g)(1). This ordinance provides that "an expansion of any non-conforming use may not be done without first obtaining a variance." Id. Liebeler's proposed addition to her detached garage required a variance because she proposed to "occup[y] space within anon-conforming area that was previously not occupied ...vertically." Id. Krummenacher argues that because state law is superior to municipal law, the City cannot grant a variance pursuant to its own ordinance if that variance violates state law. s The statute allows the municipality to require a nonconformity to be discontinued when it "is discontinued for a period of more than one year," or "is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged." Minn. Stat. § 462.3 57, subd. 1 e(a)(1) and (2). 9