Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 2 operated by Lorraine White, Trustee for Loraine M. White Trust, ("Wapiti Park") opened in the City of Elk River (the "City") in 1973. At that time, no zoning ordinance regulated use of the land. In 1980, the City enacted a zoning ordinance that rendered campgrounds a nonpermit- ted use in the district where Wapiti Park was located. Accordingly, since 1980, Wapiti Park operated the campground as a legal, nonconforming use. In 1983, the City amended the zoning ordinance to allow campgrounds as a conditional use in Wapiti Park's district. Wapiti Park applied for and was granted a conditional -use permit in 1984. Four years later, in 1988, the City amended the zoning ordinance to remove campgrounds as either a conditional or permitted use. In 2010, the City determined that peiivanent occupancy by residents at Wapiti Park violated Wapiti Park's conditional -use permit. When Wapiti Park failed to comply with the conditions, the City revoked Wapiti Park's conditional -use permit for the campground. Wapiti Park ultimately sued the City. Among other things, Wapiti Park sought a declaration that its operation of the campground was a nonconforming use that the City could not teiniinate by revoking the conditional -use permit. The district court agreed with Wapiti Park. However, the court of ap- peals reversed. The court of appeals concluded that because the conditional -use permit was violated, Wapiti Park no longer had the right to continue the nonconforming use as a campground and that the City was therefore authorized to terminate the use by revoking the conditional -use permit. Wapiti Park appealed. DECISION: Judgment of court of appeals reversed, and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the City did not have the authority to terminate Wapiti Park's nonconforming use as a camp- ground by revoking the conditional -use permit. The court explained that a nonconforming use is a constitutionally protected property right. Still, the court explained that right may be: (1) waived by the landowner, with a clear intentional relinquishment of the right; or (2) terminated by a municipality in accordance with four specific circumstances, as autho- rized by statute. As a matter of first impression (i.e., the first time the court ruled on such an issue), here, the court found that Wapiti Park's application for the conditional use permit, standing alone, did not constitute a valid waiver of its right to the nonconforming use of the campground. The court found nothing in the record showed that Wapiti Park intended to waive those rights. Thus, the court found that the conditional use permit "did not itself alter the campground's status as a nonconforming use and ©2014 Thomson Reuters 5