Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2006

Home

Page 4-July 10,2006 Z.B. An examination of the permit application revealed that the club requested a permit fGr the physical improvements that had been completed already, but for which no approval had been sought previously. The application made no re- quest for approval of increased or expanded use. The zoning administrator's approval could be no broader than the relief requested in the application. Since there was no indication that the zoning administrator's approval was intended to serve as an approval for use, which could only be granted by the board, the lower court did not err in its fmdings. see also: In re Jackson, 830 A.2d 685 (2003). Nonconfonning Use- Landowner wants to shore up nonconforming boathouse County insists nonconforming uses were intended to disappear eventually Citation: Borresch v. Steams County, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. A05-1358 (2006) MINNESOTA (05110/06) - Borresch began construction work on his existing boathouse, which was a nonconforming structure. When challenged by the county, Borresch claimed that he merely was making minor repairs, which were allowed under local law without a variance. , The county believed that Borresch was altering the boathouse in such a way that required approval, and asked him to apply for a building permit and the necessary variances. The county sent Borresch the applications, and it ordered him to stop work on the boathouse until after a hearing was held. At the hearing, the Board of Adjustment of Stearns County denied Borresch's applications. Borresch sued, arguing that he simply was shoring up the existing walls, installing steel siding, beefing up the rafters, and re-roofmg the house. The county claimed that he was essentially building a new building around the outside of the existing boathouse, necessarily increasing its depth and height. The court found in Borresch's favor, and the county appealed. It argued that nonconforming structures were meant to go away eventually, even if it took years, and the intensive work that Borresch was attempting to do on the boathouse ran counter to that goal. Because the work was more than a minor repair, the county argued that it required a variance. DECISION: Reversed. The proposed reconstruction would result in an increase in the height and depth of the boathouse and was therefore an alteration of the structure. The appeals court found that the work required a variance. The beefing up of the rafters, the shoring up of the outer walls, an~ the installation of steel siding on those walls all constituted structural alterations because they involved a change in the supporting members of the building. To the extent that "change" meant "to cause to be different," the intended boathouse work chi\nged the supporting walls and rafters of the boathouse by 88 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. /- (' { 'i;,.::