Cited by

(quoting Frank’s Nursery Sales, ).

Grp., (first citing Frank’s 11 Nursery Sales, - 09 (Minn. 1980), and then citing Med.

Frank’s Nursery Sales, Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2024).

5 (citing Frank’s Nursery Sales, -09 (Minn. 1980)).

Paul, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. May 18, 2004); see also Frank’s Nursery Sales

“A zoning ordinance should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning and in favor of the property owner.” (citing Frank’s Nursery Sales, -09 (Minn. 1980)).

See Frank’s Nursery Sales, –09 (Minn. 1980).

t was established, it is classified as a legal nonconforming use in a z oning district.” It also emphasizes that any new use of the property “must conform to the zoning ordinance.” Moreover, a “municipality cannot be estopp ed from correctly enforcing [a n] ordinance even if the property owner relied to his detriment on prior city action.” Frank’s Nursery Sales

And a “municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing [an] ordinance even if the property owner relied to his detriment on prior city action.” Frank’s Nursery Sales

Moreover, that method is reasonable because a zoning ordinance “must always be considered in light of its underlying policy.” Frank’s Nursery Sales

But see Frank’s Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville , (holding that “zoning 16 ordinances should be construed strictly agai nst the city and in favor of the property owner”).

5 “[T]he interpretation of an existing ordinance is a question of law for the court.” Frank’s Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville , .

When interpreting an ordinance, we “give words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.” Id.; see also Frank’s Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville , -09 (Minn. 1980) (interpreting zoning ordinance).

And further, ambiguous zoning ordinances should be construed “in favor of the property owner.” Frank’s Nursery Sales

Paul, (citing Frank’s Nursery Sales, ).

6 In interpreting a law, “ courts generally strive to construe a term according to i ts plain and ordinary meaning.” Frank’s Nursery Sales, d 604, 608 (Minn. 1980).

“[T]he interpretation of an existing ordinance is a question of law for the court.” Frank’s Nursery Sales

guide a court’s interpretation of an ordinance: (1) “courts generally strive to construe a term according to its plain and ordinary meaning”; (2) “zoning ordinances should be construed strictly against the [county] and in favor of the property owner”; and (3) “[a] zoning ordinance must always be considered in light of its underlying policy.” Frank’s Nursery Sales, - 09 (Minn. 1980).

Frank’s Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville

at preamble (2005); see also Frank’s Nursery Sales, (“A zoning ordinance must always be considered in light of its underlying policy.”).

Frank’s Nursery Sales, Inc., v. City of Roseville, see also Minn.Stat.

Frank’s Nursery Sales, see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2014) (providing that words and phrases are construed according to their common usage).

EOF argues that if an ordinance is ambiguous it must be interpreted in favor of the landowner and against the local government, citing Frank’s Nursery Sales

“[W]hile issues of fact and legislative policy-making decisions should be left to the city’s determination, subject only to the broad limits of the arbitrary and capricious standard, the interpretation of an existing ordinance is a question of law for the court.” Frank’s Nursery Sales, (quotation omitted).

3 “[T]he interpretation of an existing ordinance is a question of law for the court.” Frank’s Nursery Sales

SLS P’ (alteration in original) (quoting Frank’s Nursery Sales, - 09 (Minn. 1980)).

Frank’s Nursery Sales, d 604, 608 (Minn. 1980); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2012) (providing that words and phrases are construed according to their common usage).