Laserfiche WebLink
B. An interesting question, unresolved in Minnesota, exists about <br />whether a party that holds a conditional use permit but has not begun <br />construction is insulated from the kind of changes in zoning laws that <br />could restrict a permitted use. <br />1. On the one hand, the word "permit" implies that its holder has <br />some kind of entitlement to operate according to its terms. See <br />City of North Miami v. Margulies, 289 So.2d 424, 426 (Fla. <br />Dist. Ct. App. 1974) ("The record in the cause sub judice <br />demonstrates that the plaintiff had incurred extensive financial <br />obligations and expense, all in reliance upon the rezoning of his <br />property as R,P.U.D, and the issuance of a conditional usa <br />permit. The record supports the trial courC's conclusion that it <br />would be inequitable to deny plaintiff a building permit."). <br />2. However, the concept of a conditional use permit is arguably a <br />misnomer. <br />a. The function of the CUP is not to create a greater <br />entitlement for the property owner than would exist if its <br />use were a permitted use, but to impose additional <br />restrictions and burdens on the use that would not exist if <br />the use were a permitted one. <br />b. One treatise has noted that it is "the minority view" that <br />rights vest upon the issuance of a CUP or special use <br />permit. John J. Delaney, Stanley Abrams, Frank <br />5chnidman, LAND USE PRACTICE AND FORMS: HANDLING <br />THE LAND USE CASE § 35:4 (2003, <br />3. One court has found that the holder of a conditional use permit <br />is not insulated from subsequent changes in the law that might <br />also affect permitted uses. Elam v. Albers, 44 Colo. App. 281, <br />616 P.2d 168 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980). it held that "the issuance <br />of a conditional use permit creates no greater right in property <br />owners than they would have possessed had they desired to <br />develop in conformance with any other use permitted within the <br />zone." 44 Calo, App, at 282, 616 P.2d at 169. "Here, because <br />the zoning regulations covering the land involved were <br />changed, and now proscribe the use of the land as a mobile <br />home subdivision, and because no steps were taken prior to the <br />~6 <br />