01-18-2011 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 7 He stated the city should take positive action tonight to prevent costly litigation. He stated • with any other decision his client will have no choice but to pursue litigation. Attorney Beck stated the other attorney's statement "that some of the staff would like Wapiti Park to go away" is false and he hasn't' heard anybody, including Council or staff, over the years say anything to this effect. He has heard the desire to have Wapiti Park brought into conformance as a campground with state law for the safety of the people there. He stated Wapiti's attorney's comments have shown no support in reference to law. Attorney Beck stated the concept that all conditions are wiped out and no longer enforceable when the campground went from a legal conditional use to a legal non- conforming use is not the law. He stated a legal non-conforming use is lawful under the same conditions as when it was a conforming use as long as the applicant complies with the conditions. He stated back in 2000 the Interim Use Permit was the only option available to the applicant to allow the reconstruction of the store building. He stated this occurred prior to the state legislative changes in 2006, which allows anon-conforming use to be rebuilt as long as it's not expanded. He stated unti12006 city ordinance had an amortization schedule and a schedule that provided that a use damaged by more than 50 percent could not be rebuilt. He stated the applicant applied for and accepted the Interim Use Permit and it is binding. Attorney Beck noted the conditions of the 2000 Interim Use Permit were for 10 years which was recognized and accepted by the city and the applicant for the 10 year period. • He stated he is unsure why Wapiti Park would think the ordinance amendment would eliminate its conditions or why the change in the Interim Use Permit ordinance would create an unregulated right to rebuild or remain in the building. He stated the city is authorized to grant an Interim Use Permit with specific time or event terminations and that termination at the end of 10 years or of a condition not being met would be lawful. He stated he didn't hear any basis for the concept that the 60 day rule would impact that. He stated this is not a procedure to revoke an Interim Use Permit. He stated it is a decision on whether the Permit approved on the stipulation that the conditions outlined in Council's motion be met should be extended or whether it should expire because those conditions outlined haven't been met. He stated it is not accurate that city regulations are pre-empted because the State Department of Health is involved with the regulation of campgrounds. He noted the state statute says approval by the Department of Health does not relieve the applicant from securing building permits from municipalities that require permits or from complying with any other municipal ordinance or ordinances applicable thereto not in conflict with the statute. He stated the conditions outlined by the city, which go back to the early 80's, have been directed toward bringing the campground into compliance with the state statute for campgrounds. He believes the conditions are not in conflict with the statute because they are an effort to bring the use into conformance with the statute. Attorney Beck disagrees with the statement by the applicant that state law allows permanent residency at a campground. He stated the definition of "camping area" provides that it's for recreational camping vehicles and the definition of recreational camping vehicles in all its . subparts references temporary dwellings for travel, recreation, and vacation use. He stated to try and separate the two definitions from each other to get to the conclusion that there can