Laserfiche WebLink
1 . <br /> . 1� -� <br /> t <br /> ' asserted harm to the person asserting the estoppel against the public interest <br /> frust,rated if estoppel is found. Mesaba Avlation v. County of Itasca, 258 <br /> N.W.2d 877, 880 (Minn. 1977>. Here, the public interest f rustrated is the <br /> � protection of the public safety. The Administrative Law Judge has determined • <br /> • that the existing condition is dangerous to human life. That danger affects <br /> Mr. Henke, any �other occupants of the premises including successors in title <br /> and children who may play under the house. Weighing the cost to Mr. Henke of <br /> installing suitable footings and a foundation against the danger to human <br /> tife, the balance is struck in favor of the publlc interest. Brown v. Dept. <br /> of Public Welfare, 368 N.W.2d 906, 912-913 (Minn. 1985> . <br /> The temporary Certificate of Occupancy atso required Mr. Henke to improve <br /> the roof on the structure. The only evidence presented at the hearinq <br /> regarding the current condition of the roof was that it had more layers of old <br /> roofing material .than was allowed by the Code. City Ex. 10. There is no <br /> evidence in the record as to whether that condition predates the effective <br /> date of the Code. There is no evidence in the record that the current <br /> conditlon of the roof poses a danger to human heatth or safety. Under such <br /> circumstances, the City has not borne its burden of proof that Mr. Henke may <br /> be required to alter the condition of the roof prlor to obtaining a <br /> certificate of occupancy. Atthough the City asserts in its Brief that the <br /> roof leaks badly, since that statement was not made at the hearing, it is not <br /> considered by the Administrative Law Judge. <br /> Although the Administrative Law Judge has found that Mr. Henke may be <br /> required to install footings and a foundation in accordance with Chapter 29 of <br /> the Uniform Building Code, it is suggested that the Building Official and Mr. <br /> Henke agree on the least costly method of compliance. In formulating the <br />� least costly method of campllance, the Building Official should consider the <br /> age and value of the structure. <br /> B.D.C. <br /> � <br /> , - . <br /> � —9— <br /> . �' , <br />