6.3. SR 03-21-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

use subject to its CUP and compliance with the conditions set forth in the CUP. Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 462.3595, Subdivision 3, provides that: A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the municipality from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Pursuant to this Statute, the city was within its rights to amend its ordinance to eliminate campgrounds as a conditional use, but Wapiti Park retained the right to its CUP, "as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed." If the ordinance had not been amended, Wapiti Park would be obligated to comply with the conditions of its CUP, the CUP would be valid for as long as the conditions agreed upon were observed, and the CUP could be subject to revocation if the conditions agreed upon were not observed. Following the ordinance amendment, Wapiti Park became a legal nonconforming use subject to its CUP which, pursuant to the Statute, remained in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed. Failure to comply with the conditions in the CUP still subject the CUP to revocation, just as it would if the ordinance had not been amended. 2. Wapiti Park argues that it can only lose its nonconforming use status through abandonment, citing the case of County of Isanti v. Peterson, 469 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. App. 1991). In fact, that case specifically held that proof of abandonment is not required and that the right to continue a nonconforming use can be terminated by discontinuance. However, that is not the situation here. In this instance, the issue is that Wapiti Park's legal nonconforming use status is tied to its CUP. Without the CUP, it would not be a legal nonconforming use and would have no nonconforming use rights. 3. Wapiti Park argues that the city had no authority to require an IUP for reconstruction of the store building in 2000, arguing that the destroyed building was less than 50% of the total value of the campground. However, the IUP was not issued for the campground. The campground has a CUP which, as noted above, remains in effect so long as the conditions agreed upon in the CUP are observed. The IUP was issued for the store building, and the issue before the City Council is whether to renew the IUP for the store building for an additional ten years. 4. In addition to arguing that the city had no authority to require an application for either a CUP or an IUP in 2000, Wapiti Park argues that the city unilaterally treated their application for a CUP as an IUP application. As staff has pointed out in the staff reports, at the time the store building burned down in 2000, city code did not allow the reconstruction of a nonconforming use, even a legal nonconforming use. Although operation of the campground could continue pursuant to 2