Laserfiche WebLink
tTER.U SI <br />here meet any «omtil <br />inted out in the Smith <br />* * * whatever iibe^ iatemt <br />' be argued to axiat^a the footer <br />lily is significanUy wjAw in the <br />emovalo precedingjmnrn to the aat <br />parent, and the hXnee of doe <br />rests must aoeoningty be difl^nt" <br />U£. 853.97 2111,58 LA2d 87. <br />ire a diild been placed^ a fester <br />as an inMt and has leduned there <br />laMSt Wyears, aaei^his <br />r on wy infrequenUMcasioas, it is <br />i] thara foster famijf should hold the <br />in the emamnal life of the <br />child and fulflU ]p same functMO-as <br />ual family, njfm. sure that ail <br />I and oounseliwe aware of this, <br />kal ieality. <br />ertb''f'w.Xm rights and <br />relation <br />home, albeit for <br />foster-|^knt plaee- <br />ent. which is nc .inteoM to <br />rmanent relatimhip between <br />IMTcnts and a ehil^^Tbe agreement <br />mtablish the la^ relationaittp l»> <br />the welfare dejCrtment and fi <br />^ a sohetaaj <br />^foster parents in, <br />liM placed in <br />§ 257.07 and ttf dear-. <br />Iong«reeognise^fhts of <br />See, e g.. Kum r. Sadr- <br />U.S. 510,45/0.571, 69 <br />1070 i). <br />case is accordingly nmanded tollch- <br />County Juvenile 0|ort for further <br />, p. We would jne counsel to set <br />n writing the ^ief aought, in order <br />riy define tbe^ues before the oourL <br />the writ <br />9 |mwiK«m«e>Mr <br />ITASCA COUNTY v. RODENZ <br />auMSUN.wja«s <br />Minn. 423 <br />ITASCA COUNTY. Respondent, <br />V. <br />Harvey RODENZ, Appellant <br />No. 47862. <br />Supreme Court of Minnesota. <br />Jnly 7,1978. <br />f County sought order directing defend* <br />I ant to alter and remodel lus boathouse hr* <br />I e^tod on lakcshore so as toconfwnj_to <br />I aoun^^n^dn^^erdinanco^^TP^^^Wistrict <br />^jHJJt^Usa^iminty^JoC^X ^lellaey, J., <br />found that defendant’s boathouse was in <br />violation of ordinance and ordered defend­ <br />ant either to comply with ordinance or to <br />obtain a variance, and he appealed. ^ <br />Supreme Court, Otis H. Godfrey, Jr., Acting <br />Justice, held that: (1) publication of soning <br />ordinance for county was in substantial <br />8. Zoning m^TTS <br />Injunctive relief was proper where <br />building was erected on lakeshore in viola­ <br />tion of a valid toning ordinance for county. <br />Sy//ahiis by the Court <br />1. The publication of the soning ordi­ <br />nance for Itasca County was in substantial <br />compliance with the statute. <br />2. Injunctive relief is proper where a <br />building b erected on a lakeshore in viola­ <br />tion of a valid zoning rn^inance. <br />Hall, Byers, Hanson, SteH A Weinberger. <br />St Cloud, for appellant <br />Leif Nelson, Asst County Atty., Grand <br />Rapids, for respondent <br />Heard before PETERSON. TODD and <br />GODFREY. JJ.. and considered and decided <br />by the court on banc. <br />OTIS H. GODFREY, Jr., Justice.* <br />iriU. to U,!. eu,. lUK. Coanty «»igh. . «»rt <br />-u pwptt »b« 4.feiHi.M. HMVty Hod.™, <br />od on lakcshore in violation of valid aomng kU (vnthouse located <br />ordinance. <br />Affinnod. <br />L Zoning ^185 • <br />Where notice of hearing on proposed <br />soning ordinance Tor Itasca County, al­ <br />though faQing to nse statutory language <br />^intention to enact.” nevertheless indicated <br />that ordinance was recommended for <br />adoption by coun^ board, and copies wore <br />made available for Inspection by public at <br />officeB of county auditor, town derk and <br />soning board, publication of ordinance by <br />title and resolution number only was in <br />...k«ito.iHtol oompliance with statute. <br />M.SA. I S75S1, subd. 8. <br />1. Municipal Corpomtions e»110 <br />Purpose of publication of ordinance b <br />to give public notice of provisions of ordi- <br />to alter and remodel hb boathouse located <br />on the shores of Lake Pokegama, so as to <br />conform to the county soning ordinance. <br />Defendant challenged the validity of the <br />ordinance and also claimed that there was <br />no showing of irreparable harm or actual <br />violation of the ordinance. Jbe trial cou|L <br />found that defeadm^Be^aBejmjft, <br />WlaliWf 51 Uie.oEdiBaacfcMil antep» it- <br />SgaanTelfRCT.to eom^ eritb the ordinance <br />*4|^roi^SaOudgmnt and order. We <br />aftirm. <br />The Itasca County Board of Commission­ <br />ers adopted a comprehensive soning ordi­ <br />nance in November 1972. Section 559 of <br />the ordinance provides: <br />“Boathouses may be placed on water­ <br />fronts provided they do not have a dwell­ <br />ing unit or interior sanitary facilities and <br />the maximum overall height of boathous­ <br />es shall not exceed one story or 16 feet <br />• AeUaB as Justice of the Supreme Court by appoimmcnl pursusM to Miiio.Coost art. 6, <br />I 2. and Miaa.Si. 2274 sUbA 2.