My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03/10/2021 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2021
>
03/10/2021 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/21/2021 10:59:28 AM
Creation date
3/9/2021 8:19:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
03/10/2021
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
14 <br />d. If the municipality concludes the conditional use permit standards in the <br />ordinance are not met, the municipality must make written findings supporting <br />any denial. <br /> <br />e. Any conditions imposed on the permit must have support or findings in the <br />record or a court may find the condition itself to be arbitrary, capricious and/or <br />unreasonable. <br /> <br />f. Once issued, a conditional use permit is not a personal license, but rather, it is a <br />property right that attaches to the land in question. In that regard cases say “it <br />runs with the land.” The CUP remains in effect so long as the conditions <br />attached to it are complied with. See Minn. Stat. § 462.3595; Dege v. City of <br />Maplewood, 416 N.W. 2d 854 (Minn.1987); State v. Doty, 396 N.W. 2d 55 <br />(Minn. 1986). This means that transfer of ownership of the land does not affect <br />the validity of the conditional use permit. <br /> <br />g. There is little law on the mechanics or grounds of revocation. Because the CUP <br />is a property right, revocations should be based upon a substantial violations of <br />the conditions. They must be proceeded by notice and hearing, according the <br />permit holder adequate due process. For examples of court review of revocation <br />decisions, see Edling v. Isanti County, 2006 WL 1806397 (Minn. App. 2006); <br />Axelson v. Goodhue County Board of Commissioners, 2012 WL 3263901 <br />(Minn. App. 2012); and the second Axelson case, Axelson v. Goodhue County <br />Board of Commissioners, 2015 WL 1514160 (Minn. App. 2015). These cases <br />show that the courts apply the same basic principals to revocation proceedings <br />that they do in other land use permitting cases. <br /> <br />7. Processing of Conditional Use Permits. <br /> <br />a. By ordinance, the municipal body can determine whether it, a planning <br />commission, or some other “designated authority” acts as the final authority on <br />the conditional use permits. <br /> <br />b. A public hearing on a conditional use permit application must be held. However, <br />there is no requirement that there be more than one public hearing. <br /> <br />c. Like a variance, a certified copy of a conditional use permit must be recorded <br />with the county recorder or registrar of titles. <br /> <br />C. Moratoria. <br /> <br />Moratoria, or interim zoning, are two separate phrases for the same concept: A full or <br />partial development freeze for a period of time while a municipality considers the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.