Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Page 8 -- August 25, 1999 Z.B. ~ abandoned the property's nonconforming use and the property was no longer eligible to be used as a group home. Haefele appealed to the city board of adjustments. The city claimed Haefele abandoned the nonconforming use because the house had not been used as a group home since 1994. It pointed out Haefele had listed the property for sale as a single-family home in 1997 and rented the home to a single person after the previous group home moved out. Haefele said he had listed the property as a single~fai;nily because his real estate agent told him group homes searched that category. He admitted renting the property to a single person, but said that person was a caretaker who paid nominal rent while Haefete searched for a tenant or buyer. The board concluded Haefele's house could no longer be used as a group home because Haefele had abandoned its nonconforming use. The city affirmed thc board's decision, and Haefele appealed to court. Haefele asked the court for an order allowing his house to be used as a group home pending the resolution of his appeal. The city claimed Haefele wasn't entitled to such an order because he wasn't likely to win his appeal -- he had abandoned the nonconforming use by not using the property as a group home for about two years. The city said Haefele wasn't likely to suffer any harm by operating a group home with only six people, which was apparently a permitted use, pending his appeal. The court granted Haefele's request. It said he was likely to win his appeal and stood to lose tens of thousands of dollars because a group home with only six residents wasn't economically feasible. The city appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Haefele could use his house as a group home for up to 16 people pending the outcome of his appeal. Haefele and Coughlin would be irreparably harmed if they couldn't oper- ate a group home in Haefele's house. The trial court found Haefele and Coughlin stood to lose tens of thousands of dotlars if they couldn't open tim home. More- over, Haefele and Coughlin showed it wasn't economically feasible to run a group home with only six residents and the city didn't present any evidence to the contrary. Haefele's appeal was likely to succeed because the city failed to show it had a reasonable basis for its deci~sion. Abandonment required two factors, intent to abandon and an overt act indicating the owner no longer claimed a right to the nonconforming use. Although the city showed Haefele had listed the property as a single-family home and rented the home to an individual, Haefele explained both of these facts. Haefele listed the property as single- family because his real estate agent told him that's what group home operators looked for. As for renting to an indi~!dual, that person was only a caretaker who paid nominal rent while Haefele searched for a group home tenant or buyer. Citatio~: Haefele v. City of Eden ?rairie, Court of Appeals of Mi~?esotn, No. C4-99-I58 (1999). ..