Agenda - Council - 05/28/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I '1 I I I I I i I I I I I I to eight, pursuant to the license granted by the State of Minnesota to plaintiff. Plaintiff's application came before the Ramsey City council on April 25, 1995. The city council denied plaintiff's application, finding that plaintiff's application constituted a rezoning application, not a CUP application, and that positive action by the city would result in a "spot-rezoning." The city council released detailed findings in support of its action, concluding that the increase from six to eight residents at the facility would convert the residence from a single-family use to a multi-family, use, which would be inconsistent with Ramsey's zoning ordinance. The council based their findings on Minn. Stat. {}462.357 Subdivisions 7 and 8. 11. The Ramsey City Council, in denying the plaintiff's CUP application, made no findings of fact or conclusions as to the potential adverse effects of the proposed increase in the number of juvenile residents at the home, pursuant to Section 9.03.04 of Ramsey's zoning ordinance. 12. There has been no credible evidence presented, either through filings herein or the Ramsey zoning ordinance, that the addition of two persons to a household, previously accepted as constituting a single family use, converts the household to a "multi-family" household. Minn. Stat. §462.357 does not provide that a licensed residential facility with more than six residents must be defined as "multi-family", but simply requires that such a facility be~vermitted in a multi-family use zone. Moreover, the Ramsey zoning ordinance makes no reference to the term 'multi-family use' in defining its residential zones; the only source of reference to the term is the above cited Minnesota Statute. 13. MOst standard dictionaries, including Black's Law Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary, define "family" to include a collection of persons li,,'ir~g .... L,~e, ........ ¢,*r ;,, one house under one head or management, and it is commonly recognized that a "family" need not consist exclusively of bl6od relations. Minnesota has also explicitly recognized that a licensed group home may constitute a single family dwelling. See, e.g., Costly v. Caromin House, Inc., 313 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn. I981). BaSed upon the above Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Th° Plaintiff's proposed group home is a single family dwelling. 2. The Ramsey City Council's findings and decisions were not arbitrary and capricious, but based on its interpretation of ambiguous or incomplete definitions in the Ramsey zoning ordinance. However, construing the zoning ordinance strictly against the city and in favor of the property owner as