6.3. SR 03-21-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

We also point out that the ZUUO IU1' was issued with t-nly two conditions, as opposed to the seventeen that the city seeks to impose on renewal. We believe that the first condition to the 200U IUI', ("~t~he approval is valid for ten years, until the property is redeveloped, or until ownership oi' the property is transferred, whichever comes first"} was an illegal condition. o No Minnesota Statute Gives a city authority I'or termination of a permit on redevelopment or lransl'er oi' ownership. o No part of the Elk River zoning code gives any authority for termination of a permit an redevelopment or transfer of ownership. a A provision for termination of a permit on redevelopment ar transfer o1'ownership was unreasonable and unrelated to the use of the building. o See and Patricia I;. Salkin, American law of 7..oning § 14.33 (5'~` ed. 2010); o Sec also Room attd 13d. biomes and Family Care Hoiues, Operators mid Owners v. Gribbs, 67 Mich. App. 381, 241 N.W.2d 216 (197G). We agree with proposed finding number 7, but state that the permit expiration date was April 17, 2010. We also want to make a record that on March 15, 2UlU, the Ellc River City Council adopted Ordinance 10-03 amending §3U-G58. Ordinance IU-U3 was etl'ective ot>I April 3, 2010 and resulted in the use of the building l)y Wall)Itl agf11i1 becotlling a ICgal, nonconforming use with full privilege to be continued as a legal, ttonconformittig use, without further need of an IU1' or CUI'. o See L'lk River City Cade § 30-691, o See Elk River City ('ode~~' 30-701. o Sec M.S.A. fi 462.357, Subd.(I)(e). We agree wiHi proposed finding number 8, but claim that such: application was solely the II•esult of wrongful action by the city in telling my clients they could not legacy use the building and that they would not be eligible for a renewal of their liquor licenses. We agree with proposed finding number 9, but claim that Wapiti's right to use the building is not dependent on the lU ,year lUl', but instead upon its right to continue the legal, nonconforming use created by the coning ordinance amendment on April 3, 2UIU. o See Elk River City Code § 30-b91. o See lslk River City Code § 30-701. o See M.S.A.{ 462.357, Subd.(1)(e). Even ii' Wapiti needed the IUP, we believe that all of tl>ic imposed conditions arc illegal and unenforceable by reason of one or more of the following: A. Tlie conditions attempt to illegally regulate the legal, nonconforming recreational campground use and constitute an uncompensated taking of valuable property rights of White and Wapiti. o See MN Stat.l 17.184. o Sternaman v Mcllenry County, 454 P.Supp. 240 (N.U.lll. 1978). l3. Tl~e conditions are arbih•at•y, capricious and have no relation to the use of the building as an offcce, restaurant, bar, laundry and gathering place. o See Sternaman v. McHenry County, 454 F.Supp. 240 (N.D. Ill. 1978}. o See also Summit School v. Neugenl, 82 A.D2d 463, 442 N.Y.S.2d 73 (2d Dep't 1981). o See also Patricia E. Salkin, American Law of Zoning ti 14.31 - 14.32 (5`~' ed. 2010).