6.3. SR 03-21-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. Mr. Barnhart's letter of July K, 2010, listed only 4 conditions, none of which were relevant or material to the use of the bui{ding: o I .That the park's septic system be verified as appropriate for winter use; 0 2. That a Manure Management Plan for the park be submitted; 0 3. That a Debris Management be developed for the park; and 0 4. That the park be closed from January I" iln•ough March I" of each year. I). The regulation of campgrounds has been preempted by the State of Minnesota and delegated to the MN Ileaith Dept. o See Board of Sup'rs of Croaks "fp.,l2enville County v. ValAdCo, 504 N. W.2d 267 (Minn. App. 1993). o See M.S.A. 327.IG, Subd. I. o See nps. Atty. Gen., 238i and G24d-8 o See also State v. Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.App.2006), review granted {Mimi. l)ec. 12, 2UOG). E. The Clk River ordinances do not authorize the council, in granting an lUN', to make it subject to termination if certain agreements are not reached by a later date. o See L'Ik River City Code ~ 30-G58, Subd.(b}(6) and (7); and o See M.S.A. § 4G2.3597, Subd.{2)(4). F. The Council's action of approving a l(1 year lUl', but making it subject to termination if the city and applicant do nut reach a future agreement, is in violation of M.S.A. § 15.99 (tltic 60 day rule), M.S.A. § 462.3597, Subd.{2)(4), tl:e I?Ik 12iver City Code § 30-6513, and denies my clients of the protection intended by M.S.A. § 15.99. o See M.S.A.~~' 15.99; o See M.S.A.~~'' 462,3597, Subd.(2)(4); and o See Glk River City Code ~ 30-658, Subd.{b)(C}and (7). ]f the city terminates Wapiti's lUP and liquor licenses its action will constitute a regulatcn•y taking of valuable property rights, exposing the city to a claim for damages. o See M.S.A. ~ 1 17,187. Elk River's ordinances set forth no procedure 1'or the revocation of an lUl'. Both Ms. White and Wapiti will have been denied substantive acid procedural due process, 31' the city revokes the lUl', without an authorized procedure fa• doing so. The definition cited in proposed finding t:wnber 12 is specifically limited it: application to use within specific sections of the statute. o See M.S.A. § 327.14, Subd. 7. Proposed finding number l3 completely misstates the stature. Chapter 327.14, Subd. 8, states that a Recreatio~tal Camping Area means, "an area used on a daily, nightly, weekly or longer basis". It does not use tltie word `temporary' in defining 12ecreational Camping Area. o See M.S.A. 327.14 Subd. 8. Proposed finding uunil~er IS is neither relevant nor material to the lUP for use of the building. With respect to proposed finding number 15, city staff' has never, defined what it means by "permanent residents." Most of the residents referred to by city staff on prior occasions as "permanent" have since moved out, clearly demonsh•atiisg that they were taot "permanent" residents.