Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2014

Home

January 25, 2014 ( Volume 8 I Issue 2 Zoning Bulletin did not govern that use from 1980 to present —including when the City revoked the conditional -use peiuiit in 2010." Having concluded that Wapiti Park did not waive its right to operate the campground as a nonconforming use, the court next looked at whether the City had the authority to terminate the nonconforming use by revoking the conditional -use permit. The court explained that under Minnesota statutory law, municipalities could teniiinate legally noncon- forming uses in only the four following ways: (1) by exercise of the municipality's eminent domain power (Minn Stat. § 465.01); (2) upon a showing that the use was "discontinued for a period of more than one year" (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd: 1e(a)(1)); (3) upon a showing that the use was "destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its estimated market value" (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a)(2)); or (4) when the use is a nuisance (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1d). The court emphasized that those four governing statutory provisions did not include the revocation of a previously issued conditional -use peu nit. Accordingly, the court held that the city lacked the statutory authority to terminate Wapiti Park's nonconforming use as a camp- ground by revoking the conditional use permit. See also: In re Welfare of G.L.H., 614 N. W.2d 718 (Minn. 2000). See also: Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc., 764 N. W.2d 359, 68 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 567 (Minn. 2009). Case Note: The City had contended that it properly terminated Wapiti Park's nonconform- • ing use as a campground by revoking the conditional -use permit. In support of its contention, the City focused on language from Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subdivi- sion 1 e(a), which protects only the right of "the lawful use . . . of land . . . existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control" to continue after that use, becomes nonconforming. Because Wapiti Park violated the conditions of the conditional -use permit, the City reasoned, its use of the land was unlaw- ful and therefore no longer a protected nonconforming use. The court rejected this argument, noting that the City's rationale was based on the assumption that Wapiti Park's nonconforming status first arose in 1988 and was then governed by the conditional -use permit. As the court concluded, the record indicated that Wapiti Park's use of the property began in 1973, that it became a nonconform- ing use in 1980, and that the conditional -use permit did not set the parameters of that use through 1988 and beyond. In the case, Wapiti Park also challenged the City's authority to require Wapiti Park to obtain an interim. -use permit to replace a building that was destroyed by fire in 1999. The court concluded that the City acted within its authority in requiring the interim -use permit, pursuant to the statute in effect at the time the building was destroyed by fire. 6 © 2014 Thomson Reuters