6.1. SR 07-18-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the processing and could not be merely an attempt to indirectly regulate the mining operation). In other words, the City cannot attempt to regulate the Campground through the conditions associated with 2000 IUP. The 2000 IUP pertains to the use and occupancy of the Building, not the Campground. Any condition imposed by the City must bear a reasonably relation to the use and occupancy of the Building. IV. The City's revocation of the 2000 IUP is not a sufficient basis on which to revoke Applicants' Liquor Licenses. The City has refused to renew the Applicants' Liquor Licenses because it claims the Building is illegal due to the expiration of the 2000 IUP. As stated above, the Building is not illegal. The Building is a legal, nonconforming use for which the Applicants should have never been required to obtain an interim use permit to begin with. Although the City may try to claim that its denial was based on Applicants failure to pay the application fee, this is simply an attempt by the City to shield itself from the truth. In March 2011, the City denied the renewal of Applicants' Consumption and Display permit. In its denial, the City claimed that the Building was illegal because its 2000 IUP had expired. As the City is well aware, a liquor license is useless without a Consumption and Display Permit. Once the City denied approving the Consumption and Display Permit, the Applicants had no reason to attempt to gain approval for the Liquor Licenses. Even if the Applicants had paid the fee, the City would have surely denied the Applicants' request on the grounds that the Building was illegal. However, even if the City would have approved the Liquor Licenses, the Applicants would have been unable sell on/off sale because of the City's denial of their Consumption and Use Permit back in March. 11