06-23-1980 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r r • m 326 Minn. SOS NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, ^onnerly conducted in the preciic ®P*t> •ten in which the addition wai to be built and that, therefore, it was not an ex tension of the nonconforming use. The ^ that the constTST - tion of a building to House an ouBlnSr Sn. conforming use constituted an enlargSncnt ol such user""””*" " ■ In addition to the storage of earth-mov ing equipment, defendant's valid noncon forming use includes repair and mainte nance of the equipment The harshness of Minnesota winters implies that much repair and maintenance work can be done in a building when similar work cannot be done outside. The building would no doubt fa- ciliute defendant’s operations in other ways. (^>4] An-addi|ion to an existing build- ing is clearly jn e^Oensioi^l^TSnlBSfnf A nrsnw ^.T_^^**^^*^^^^***a*>^* i>tiilding where none existed before constitutes an expan sion of a nonconforming use in the same manner as an addition to an existing build ing. Furthermore, the building will pro long the continuation of the nonconform ing use and considerably lessen the likeli hood that it will be eliminated in ^e fore- •ceable future,^ Oefendani cites Pennsylvania cases to •unport his contention that the erection of the building is not an expansion or exten- •ion of his nonconforming use.* We have considered those cases and decline to fol low thenia We hold that the construciion of this building to house the outdoor nonconform- i^ use constitutes an expansion and exten sion of that use and is in violation of the ordinance. 3. The trial court found that the denial of defendant's petition to rexone bore no reasonable iflationship to public health, safety, or public welfare, and constituted a deprivation without due proc'*^ of law of I. E. f., EUoler v. KrdU Oorp., 40# Pa. 400, 172 A.2d 820 (1001); la rv Paiiet defendant's constitutional rights to full en joyment of his property. Several well-esUblished princi- pies control the determination of this question. This court has established that before the exercise of the police power can "T>e held unconstitutional, it must be found that it has no substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfa-e. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. V. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Mina 492, 162 N.W2d 206 (1968). The burden of proof is upon defendant to esUblish that the legislative body has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably and that there is no eubsUn- tial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. What best furthers public welfare is a matter primarily for de termination by the legislative body con cerned. State ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseville, 244 Minn. 343, 70 N.W2d 404 (1955). Even where the reasonableness of a aoning ordinance is debatable or where opinions differ as to the desirability of the restriction it imposes, the courts are not to interfere with the legislative discretioa We said in Sute v. Modem Box Makers, Inc., 217 Mina 41, 47, 13 N.W2d 731, 734 (1944): ''Defendant finally contends that the ordinance is arbitrary and unreasonable in its application to the property here^in- volved. • • • Xhe general rule is that if reasonableness of an ordinance is debatable, courts will not interfere with the legislative discretioa" [3] The trial court placed considerable emphasis on the fact that defendant's brother conducts a similar nonconforming business adjacent to the subject premises, and that enclosing within a building that whach was formerly performed in the open will be aesthetically beneficial to the area. While these factors may create some doubt about the reasonableness of the enforce ment of the ordinance in this case, we can- Appeal, 884 Pa. lOa 118 A.2d 508 C1806) J