DCPVAR-0000-02812 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

out are free to take with them their own mobile home. However, tenants who move in or out of a mobile home park do not take with them the owner's investment in the in -ground permanent improvements which define each mobile home site or pad, and the general park configuration, spacing, parking and layout. It is the park owner's investment in these permanent improvements which are the "use" of the "premises" protected by the nonconforming use statute and ordinance. We think the leading case as to mobile home park nonconforming uses was handed down in a thoughtful decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court. "It is indeed unfortunate that neither the township planner nor the developer of Eaton Mobile Home Park seems to have anticipated and made allowance for the significant increase in the size of mobile homes which has taken place since the mid-1960s, but the City may not now remedy that lack of vision by inserting into its zoning code definition of `structure' and `nonconforming structure' patently designed to force immediate compliance with an ordinance adopted more than 30 years after the Park came into existence." SLF vs. Apple Valley, 511 N.W.2d 738 at 742 (Minn. 1994). "We have previously observed that a municipality need not allow the expansion or enlargement of pre-existing nonconforming uses and that the `public policy behind that doctrine is to increase the likelihood that such uses will in time be eliminated due to obsolescence, exhaustion, or destruction.' To permit the City of Apple Valley to accelerate the elimination of Eaton's nonconforming use by requiring immediate compliance with Ordinance 515 would be to allow the City to achieve by zoning ordinance that which can be done only by imminent domain." Id. We now turn to an overriding public policy consideration. Should the zoning ordinance be construed to encourage or to 13