Court Opinion

ID: 9689941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:49:57.040319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:52.827214
License: Public Domain

SCHULTZ, Justice
(dissenting).
I disagree with the majority finding that the nursing home’s present use is merely an increase in its business of caring for the mentally infirm. The evidence clearly shows that there was a drastic change in the type of resident cared for in the home. Former employees testified that between 1982 and 1985 the elderly residents were replaced by younger patients with violent tendencies. When the ordinance was enacted, the home had residents with some mental problems, but the primary reason for their care was their age. Now, the younger residents require principally care for their mental conditions. Thus, I believe there has been a qualitative, as well as quantitative, change in the home’s resident population.
The nursing home’s present use does not predate the ordinance to qualify as a legal nonconforming use. I also find no merit in appellant’s other claims. I would affirm the trial court.
HARRIS and ANDREASEN, JJ., join this dissent.