My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.4. SR 05-17-2010
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2010
>
05-17-2010
>
5.4. SR 05-17-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 3:05:21 PM
Creation date
5/14/2010 2:29:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
5/17/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
622
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Court must give effect to that plain meaning, and there is no room for further <br />construction. See American Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn. <br />2001); Beseke v. County of Goodhue, No. C6-00-489, 2000 WL 1341458, at *2 (Minn. <br />App. Sept. 19, 2000) (Ex. 148) (citing Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Assn v. Paster; <br />437 N.W.2d 52, 56 (Minn. 1989)); Erickson v. Fullerton, 619 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Minn. <br />App. 2000); Mullins v. Churchill, 616 N.W.2d 764, 767 (Minn. App. 2000). In other <br />words, a city bound by the plain language of its ordinance. See Save Lantern Bay v. Cciss <br />County Planning Comm'n, 683 N.W.2d 862, 865 (Minn. App. 2004) ("Fundamental to <br />our construction of an ordinance is the rule that it'should be construed in accordance <br />with the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms"') (quoting Nlohler° v. C.'iry ~~f St. Lozris <br />Park, 643 N.W.2d 623, 634 (Minn. App.), review denied (Minn. Jul. 16, 2002)). <br />An ordinance is ambiguous only if the language is subject to more than one reasonable <br />interpretation. See American Fam. Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. <br />2000). This Court may look beyond the ordinance language only to resolve an <br />ambiguity, not to create one. See Erickson, 619 N.W.2d at 207. <br />The City failed to identify any such ambiguity in the City Code. And, without such an <br />ambiguity, the City is bound by the plain language of the City Code on this point. <br />2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION N0.2: Ambiguities are to lie <br />construed in favor of the landowner <br />An ordinance is to be construed so that it does not violate the law or public policy. See <br />Rasmussen v. Glass, 498 N.W.2d 508, 514 (Minn. App. 1993). And, in the land use <br />context, public policy favors the construction which permits the land owner's proposed <br />use. See Dailey v. City of Long Lake, No. C3-998-1663, 1999 WL 118633, at *4 (Minn. <br />App. Mar. 9, 1999) (Ex. 149) (finding that the public policy rule of construction favors <br />interpretation in favor of land owner). <br />T:\0742\1406\CiryApppeb\FEB Repon_finnl (2).doc 3-23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.