## Facts

- Caromin House, Inc. purchased a lot in the Eighth Addition subdivision in Two Harbors, Minnesota, zoned R-2 for one- and two-family dwellings and subject to a covenant limiting each lot to “one dwelling and one garage.”
- Caromin House planned to operate a state-licensed group home for six adults with developmental disabilities with live-in “houseparents.”
- The proposed structure would be physically similar to surrounding single-family homes and arranged as a typical residence with shared living areas and separate bedrooms.
- The City of Two Harbors issued the necessary approvals, including a zoning permit, treating the group home as a permitted single-family residential use under Minnesota statutes.
- Neighboring homeowners sued to stop the project, alleging the home violated the zoning ordinance and restrictive covenant and asserting constitutional challenges to the statutes requiring single-family treatment of licensed group homes.
- Four proposed residents moved to intervene, claiming a direct interest in being able to live in the home; the district court denied intervention.
- The district court also denied the neighbors’ motion for a temporary injunction; both rulings were appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a small, state-licensed group home for adults with developmental disabilities qualifies as a permitted “single-family dwelling” in an R-2 district allowing only one- and two-family dwellings.
2. Whether operating the group home violates a restrictive covenant limiting the lot to “one dwelling and one garage.”
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a temporary injunction barring construction and operation of the group home.
4. Whether the district court erred in denying intervention as of right to the proposed residents.
5. Whether the statutes requiring licensed group homes to be treated as single-family residential use are unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The court held the proposed licensed group home qualifies as a permitted single-family residential use for zoning purposes.
- The court held the restrictive covenant was not violated because the use remained a single dwelling and the covenant did not clearly prohibit such residential occupancy.
- The court affirmed the denial of a temporary injunction, concluding the neighbors did not show a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and public policy favored community-based residential placement.
- The court reversed the denial of intervention, holding the proposed residents were entitled to intervene as of right.
- The court rejected the neighbors’ constitutional challenges and upheld the statutory scheme.

## Legal Principles

- When state law classifies certain licensed group homes as permitted single-family residential uses, local zoning provisions must be construed consistently with that classification absent a direct conflict.
- “Family” for residential zoning may be evaluated functionally; a group living as a single housekeeping unit with shared facilities can fall within single-family residential use.
- Restrictive covenants are strictly construed, and ambiguous limits are resolved in favor of free use of land; a covenant limiting a lot to a single dwelling does not bar a residential group home absent clear language to that effect.
- Temporary injunctions require consideration of likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and the public interest; denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Intervention as of right is required when a timely applicant has a significant interest that may be impaired by the litigation and existing parties may not adequately represent that interest.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court treated a small, licensed group home for adults with developmental disabilities as a permitted single-family residential use, found no covenant violation, upheld denial of a temporary injunction, and required intervention as of right for the proposed residents whose housing interests were directly at stake.


Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., 313 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. 1981)