Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the proposed project and not otherwise usable. If these elements <br /> <br />are proven, then the equities will be examined to determine <br /> <br />whether a vested right to proceed exists. See City of Eden Prairie <br /> <br />v. Liepke, 403 N.W.2d252 (Minn. App., 1987); Rosecliff <br /> <br /> <br />Landscape Nursery v. City of Rosemount, 467 N.W.2d641 (Minn. <br /> <br /> <br />App., 1991). See also Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d <br /> <br /> <br />781 (Minn., 1989). However, the fact that a city has previously <br /> <br /> <br />granted other permits in conflict with the terms of its zoning <br /> <br /> <br />ordinances will also generally not estop the city in subsequent <br /> <br /> <br />cases from denying similar permits. Arcadia Development Corp. v. <br /> <br />City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 125 N.W.2d 846 (1964). <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />Nonconforming uses. Nonconforming uses are uses that were <br /> <br />legally in effect prior to the adoption or amendment of a zoning <br /> <br />ordinance and, in recognition of the landowner's property rights, <br /> <br />are allowed to continue even though such uses are subsequently <br /> <br />prohibited. The reason for identifying nonconforming uses in a <br /> <br />zoning ordinance is to secure the gradual or eventual elimination of <br /> <br />nonconforming uses. Besides being allowed to remain in effect, <br /> <br />nonconforming uses also escape requirements subsequently <br /> <br />enacted, such as setback requirements. Although these uses must <br /> <br />be allowed to continue, zoning ordinances often prohibited them <br /> <br />from being expanded or rebuilt, which placed restrictions and <br />