My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 1
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2000-2005
>
2003
>
05-13-2003
>
Item 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2018 12:05:06 PM
Creation date
7/23/2018 12:05:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Land Use and Zoning-Legal Review <br /> Planning Commission Meeting <br /> May 13,2003 <br /> Page 13 <br /> • v.City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781 (Minn., 1989). The fact that <br /> a city has previously granted other permits in conflict with the terms <br /> of its zoning ordinances will also generally not estop the city in <br /> subsequent cases from denying similar permits.Arcadia <br /> Development Corp.v.City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 125 <br /> N.W.2d 846 (1964). <br /> 4. Nonconforming uses. Nonconforming uses are uses that were legally <br /> in effect prior to the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance <br /> and,in recognition of the landowner's property rights, are allowed to <br /> continue even though such uses are subsequently prohibited. The <br /> reason for identifying nonconforming uses in a zoning ordinance is <br /> to secure the gradual or eventual elimination of nonconforming uses. <br /> Besides being allowed to remain in effect,nonconforming uses also <br /> escape requirements subsequently enacted, such as setback <br /> requirements. Although these uses must be allowed to continue, <br /> zoning ordinances may prohibit them from being expanded or <br /> rebuilt,which places restrictions and limitations on their ability to <br /> exist over time and makes their eventual elimination more likely. <br /> Prior to 2001,municipalities had some flexibility in how they <br /> regulated non-conforming uses.However,the 2001 legislature <br /> adopted Minn. Stat. S463.357, Subd. 1(e),which specifically governs <br /> non-conforming uses and preempts local zoning ordinances with <br /> • respect thereto. The statute provides as follows: <br /> Any non-conformity,including the lawful use or <br /> occupation of land or premises existing at the time of <br /> the adoption of an additional control under this <br /> chapter,may be continued,including through repair <br /> or maintenance, but if the non-conformity or <br /> occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than <br /> one year, or any non-conforming use is destroyed by <br /> fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50% of <br /> its market value,any subsequent use or occupancy of <br /> the land or premises shall be a conforming use or <br /> occupancy.A municipality may by ordinance impose <br /> upon non-conformities reasonable regulations to <br /> prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public <br /> health,welfare,or safety. This subdivision does not <br /> prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance <br /> that applies to adults-only bookstores, adults-only <br /> theaters, or similar adults-only businesses as defined <br /> by ordinance. <br /> This statutes supercedes local zoning ordinances which are <br /> inconsistent therewith. Therefore,it is recommended that local <br /> ordinances be amended to comply with this legislation. <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.