6.1. SR 07-18-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.~ nonconforming use must be permitted to remain. The City has never alleged that Wapiti has changed its operation. Rather, the City has even maintained that Wapiti has operated in the same manner for the past 35 years. Moreover, the City has never claimed that Wapiti has ever abandoned the Property. Simply put, the Applicants should have never been required to obtain the 1984 CUP. Despite the City's claims, the Applicants did not have legal counsel present throughout the permit process. The planning commission and city council meeting minutes make clear, by the time the Applicants' obtained legal counsel, the 1984 CUP had already been issued. Riclc Breeze, the Director of Planning for the City in 1983, unilaterally determined that Wapiti was a "non-conforming" use that required either a zoning change or conditional use permit to come into compliance. Although the City now routinely states that the Campground was a legal, nonconforming use, back then Mr. Breeze never stated that the Applicants' could continue to operate the Campground as they always had because they were a legal, nonconforming use. This option was never presented to the Applicants. Relying on the City, the Applicants applied for a conditional use permit as instructed. At a meeting of the planning commission on February 28, 1984, Mr. Breeze indicated that the Applicants were applying for a conditional use permit. The planning commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit with six (6) conditions. Then, at a meeting of the city council on March 19, 1984, the city council approved a conditional use permit for the Applicants subject to seven (7) conditions. No attorney was present on behalf of the Applicants for either of those hearings. Despite the City's approval of a conditional use permit at the March 19, 1984 hearing, the City continued the public hearing to review and consider the length of stay of campers at Wapiti. 8