Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Z.B. November 25, 1998 -- Page 7 Recovery House appealed again, claiming its proposed use was permitted outright in the zone and therefore wasn't subject to the city's conditions. Re- covery House claimed its proposed use qualified as a "single-family dwelling" because the word "or" in the code encompassed buildings that were either designed or used for single-family occupancy. It said that because its building was designed for single-family use, the building met the definition of a single- family dwelling and its proposed use was permitted. The city argued a building had to be both designed and used for single- family occupancy to qualify as a single-family dwelling under the code and the use of the word "or" was a mistake. The city also claimed applying the word literally would bring about an absurd or unreasonable result, arguing any use . including a commercial or industrial one would be allowed in a residen- tial district provided it was done in a building that was originally designed to be a single-family house. The court affirmed the board's decision, and Recovery House appealed~ DECISION: Reversed. Recovery House's proposed use was permitted outright in the district, be- cause its building met the definition-of "single-family dwelling." The city was free to amend its code if it didn't reflect the city's current intent, but it couldn't do so in court. There was no reason to read the word "or" or the words it separated as meaning anything other than alternative criteria for complying with the defini- tion of"single-family dwelling." The city was correct that the court could terpret "or" to mean "and" if failing to do so would leave the code meaning- less, but here the word "or" in the code meant "or" in its customary "either/or" sense. The code's use of the terms "or" and "and" in different parts of the code showed that the enacting body was aware of and used the terms in keeping with different meanings. Nothing supported the city's claim that the word "or" was used in error. The city simply theorized that because its planning personnel now believed the city should combine the design and use prongs in the definition, those who drafted and enacted the ordinance necessarily misspoke themselves by saying the opposite. Editor's Note: This case is a continuation of a case summarized in the Jan. 25, 1998, issue of Zoning Bulletin. Conditional Use -- Owners say county had no reason to deny feedlot expansion Citatio~: B~ya~ v. Re~ville County Board of Com~nissioners, Court of Appeals of Mh~esota, No. C1-98-978 (!998) The Bryans ran a 2,000-hog feedlot in Renville County, Minn. They ap- plied to the county planning office for a conditional use permit allowing them