6.1. SR 07-18-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

occupy Building II, the City can only impose conditions that relate to the use of Building II, as opposed to trying to impose conditions that seek to regulate the Campground as a whole. ARGUMENT I. The Applicants' Campground and the Building are legal, nonconforming uses. Wapiti began doing business in 1976 and at all times used and occupied a building located on the Property as an office, bar, laundry and gathering place for guests. In 1976, Minnesota statutes section 4632.357 stated the following with respect to a legal, nonconforming use: "Subd. le. Nonconformities. Any nonconformity...may be continued, including through repair or maintenance, but if the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year, or any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or orther peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy." At the time the City adopted the Code in 1980, Wapiti had been legally operating for approximately four (4) years. In 1980, the Code did not allow campgrounds as either a permitted nor conditional use in the zone where the Property was located. As a result, Wapiti became a legal, nonconforming use. In 1983, Defendant amended the Code to permit campgrounds as a conditional use within the zone where the Property was located.. Despite Vilapiti's legal, nonconforming use status, Defendant required Plaintiffs obtain a conditional use permit in order to continue operating the Campground in a manner that was consistent with how Plaintiffs had always operated. At Defendant's direction, Plaintiffs applied for and were issued a conditional use permit in 1984 (" 1984 CUP") The Applicants never waived their legal right to legal, nonconforming use status in either the Campground or the Building. Absent the change of use or abandonment, a legal, 7