Laserfiche WebLink
to eight, pursuant to the license granted by the State of Minnesota to plaintiff. Plaintiff's application <br />came before the Ramsey City council on April 25, 1995. The city council denied plaintiff's application, <br />finding that plaintiff's application constituted a rezoning application, not a CUP application, and that <br />positive action by the city would result in a "spot-rezoning." The city council released detailed findings <br />in support of its action, concluding that the increase from six to eight residents at the facility would <br />convert the residence from a single-family use to a multi-family use, which would be inconsistent with <br />Ramsey's zoning ordinance. The council based their findings on Minn. Stat. §462.357 Subdivisions 7 <br /> <br />and 8. <br /> <br /> 11. The Ramsey City Council, in denying the plaintiff's CUP application, made no findings <br /> <br />of fact or conclusions as to the potential adverse effects of the proposed increase in the number of <br />juvenile residents at the home, pursuant to Section 9.03.04 of Ramsey's zoning ordinance. <br /> 12. There has been no credible evidence presented, either through filings herein or the <br />Ramsey zoning ordinance, that the addition of two persons to a household, previously accepted as <br />constituting a single family use, converts the household to a "multi-family" household. Minn. Stat. <br />§462.357 does not :,provide that a licensed residential facility with more than six residents must be <br />defined as "multi-f'amily", but simply requires that such a facility bej?errnitted in a multi-family use <br />zone. Moreover, the Ramsey zoning ordinance makes no reference to the term 'multi-family use' in <br /> <br />defining its residential zones; the only source of reference to the term is the above cited Minnesota <br /> <br />Statute. <br /> <br /> 13. MOst standard dictionaries, including Black's Law Dictionary and Merriam-lZ/ebster <br /> <br />Dictionary, define ~'family" to include a collection of persons ':-':-, together in <br /> t,-,,,~ one house under one <br /> <br />head or managemeht, and it is commonly recognized that a "family" need not consist exclusively of <br />blood relations. Minnesota has also explicitly recognized that a licensed group home may constitute a <br />single family dwelling. See, e.g., Costly v. Caromin House, Inc., 313 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn. 1981). <br /> <br />Based upon the above Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following: <br /> <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> 1. The Plaintiff's proposed group home is a single family dwelling. <br /> 2. Thi~ Ramsey City Council's findings and decisions were not arbitrary and capricious, but <br /> <br />based on its interpretation of ambiguous or incomplete definitions in the Ramsey zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />However. construirtg the zoning ordinance strictly against the city and in favor of the property owner as <br /> <br /> <br />