Laserfiche WebLink
January 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 2 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />scope of § 332(c)(7) on local land use authority: (1) it preempts local <br />land use authorities' regulations if they violate the requirements of <br />§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) (which relate to the promulgation of generally <br />applicable legislative regulations, including the regulation of the place- <br />ment of wireless service facilities); and (2) it preempts local land use <br />authorities' adjudicative decisions if the procedures for making such de- <br />cisions do not meet the minimum requirements of § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and <br />(iii) (which refer to the procedures used by local land use authorities in <br />making adjudicative decisions related to wireless service facilities). <br />Here, the court determined that the requirements imposed by Measure <br />C were not part of a local government's zoning and land use decision - <br />making process that was subject to the limitations of § 332(c)(7); it was <br />neither a legislative regulation nor an adjudicative decision. Rather, the <br />court found that Measure C was a voter -enacted rule, which provided <br />that the City could not lease or sell City -owned property for certain <br />types of construction unless authorized by a majority of the electors. The <br />court concluded that "the voter -approval requirement imposed by Mea- <br />sure C [was] outside the City's framework for land use decision making <br />because it does not implicate the regulatory and administrative structure <br />established by the City's general plans and zoning and subdivision <br />code." Accordingly, the court concluded that because the requirements <br />imposed by Measure C fell outside the TCA's preemptive scope, the <br />City's imposition of Measure C was not preempted by § 332(c)(7)(B) of <br />the TCA. <br />See also: Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, 283 F.3d 404 (2d Cir. 2002). <br />Nonconforming Use —City <br />terminates nonconforming <br />campground use by revoking <br />conditional -use permit <br />Campground owner contends City lacked <br />authority to so terminate nonconforming use <br />Citation: White v. City of Elk River, 2013 WL 6252431 (Minn. 2013) <br />MINNESOTA (12/4/13)—This case addressed the issues of: whether <br />an application for and receipt of a conditional -use permit automatically <br />waives a nonconforming use status, and whether a municipality has the <br />authority to teiininate 'a nonconforming use by revocation of a condi- <br />tional use permit. <br />The Background/Facts: Wapiti Park Campgrounds, Inc., owned and <br />©2014 Thomson Reuters <br />