Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 23 <br />nonconforming use. Conditional -use permits are perpetual, and `shall remain <br />in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed.' " In other words: <br />"[A] conditional -use permit does not cease to exist merely because the use <br />later becomes nonconforming. Rather, the conditionally permitted use is still <br />allowed, so long as the property continues to comply with the original permit <br />conditions." <br />In summary, the court found that Wapiti Park was still entitled to operate as <br />a campground after it became a nonconforming use, but only if it remained in, <br />compliance with the conditions in the 1984 conditional use permit. The court <br />concluded that, when, in 2010, Wapiti Park was no longer in compliance with <br />the permit conditions (because it had permanent residents), the City properly <br />revoked the permit. <br />See also: Lam v. City of St. Paul, 714 N. W.2d 740 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court said it would be would be inconsistent "to conclude that <br />merely because the [CJity exercises its broad discretion to amend a zoning ordinance, <br />converting what was a conditionally permitted use into a nonconforming use, it loses <br />the authority to enforce the conditions that it deemed necessary to promote public <br />health, safety, and welfare when it first issued the permit." <br />Modification of General Plan —City <br />adopts revised housing element of <br />general plan, identifies needed <br />changes to land use elements for <br />implementation <br />Concerned residents claim failure to first adopt <br />land use element changes creates an unlawful <br />inconsistency in the general plan <br />Citation: Friends ofAviara v. City of Carlsbad, 148 Cal. Rptr. 3d 805 (Cal. <br />App. 4th Dist. 2012) <br />CALIFORNIA (11/1/12)—This case addresses the issue of whether the <br />adoption by municipalities of revisions to the housing element of their general <br />plans, which require later modifications to the municipalities' land use ele- <br />ment, creates an impermissible conflict between the housing element and the <br />land use element in the general plan. <br />The Background/Facts: California's Housing Element Law declares af- <br />fordable housing "a priority of the highest order" and requires the general plan <br />of public localities to "include a housing element consisting of several manda- <br />©2012 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />