Laserfiche WebLink
, i <br /> "wllether the statute's language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous." Am. Family Ins. <br /> Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). If the law is "clear and free from <br /> all ambiguity," the plain meaning controls and is not "disregarded under the pretext of <br /> pursuing the spirit." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2008); Phelps v. Com�nonwealth Land Title <br /> Ins. Co., 537 N.W.Zd 271, 274 (Min.n. 1995) ("Where the intention of the legislature is <br /> clearly manifested by plain unambiguous Ianguage . . . no construction is necessary or I <br /> permitted."). The legislature has also stated that it intends the entire statute to be <br /> effective. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 ("Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect <br /> to all its provisions."). <br /> This case is about a structure that does not conform with Iocal land use <br /> restrictions. We have recognized that a local zoning ordinance "may constitutionally <br /> prohibit the creation of uses which are nonconfornung." County of Freeborn v. Claussen, <br /> 295 Minn. 96, 99, 203 N.VJ.Zd 323, 325 (1972). As to"existing nonconforming uses," <br /> however, these "must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent <br /> domain." Id. But a local government "is not required" to permit the expansion of such <br /> nonconformities. Id. <br /> Subdivision 1 e is consistent with these principles. We read the subdivision in its <br /> entirety and give effect to both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Minn. Stat. § 645.16; <br /> (Footnote continued from previous page.) <br /> words, the scope of the nonconformity would not be expanded if Liebeler's request were <br /> granted. The City nevertheless concedes that the variance sought an "expansion" for <br /> purposes of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le, and we treat it as such for purposes of this <br /> opinion. <br /> 8 <br /> �� <br /> � <br /> i <br /> I <br /> I <br />