08/22/1979 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

1 1 August 22, 1979 question as to whether all special use permits issued prior to the adopt- tion of the ordinance must conform to that ordinance; Mayor Karth said that special use permits as well as rezoning must comply with section 6.21. He further inquired as to whether the assumption could then follow that if there was a change in the building code, that existing homes must change to comply with changes in the building code; if the reasoning could apply in one sense, why not another? Mr. McLean indicated this had just dealt with zoning, and Mr. Locher pointed out that the City of Minneapolis had been going through houses and forcing people to bring them up to code, and also required a city inspection prior to the sale of a house; however, this had not yet been tested in the courts. Mr. Benson and Mr. Talle were asked for their comments, and then the meeting was opened to discussion from the audience. A man in the audience asked if he was correct in assum- ing that if the Council saw fit to revoke special use permit #27, then they must go back through the files and reconsider every special use permit to see if it conformed to thatparticular ordinance. The Council indicated that if they took the action advised, this would be the case. Mr. Locher explained that if, for example, the riding stables were still in existance and had been under a special use permit, they would be allowed to continue. Another section of the ordinance might also be considered; it said taht any non - conforming use of the open land may be continued for a period of 3 years after the effective date of the ordinance whereupon the non -con- forming use shall cease. Anything in violation could be tagged. Mr. McLean asked what the City's position on this would be since this had not been done. Mr. Locher indicated that this situation would be analagous to a man who speeded for years in a 30 mph zone and had never been caught be- cause of an inadequate police force; if he was arrested, this would never stand up on court. Mr. Jaworski brought up a point that had once come up before the Council; that of small businesses in homes where there were no special use permits or rezonings involved for that particular use, yet there had been action taken by the Council to grandfather all those businesses in so they could continue operation. Mr. McLean felt in that case, they had not been intentional only but had been in actual physical existance. Mr. Locher indicated section 6.21 covered home operations as well, and read the pertaining section. Mayor Karth felt if this was enforced for sepcial use permit #27, it would have to be enforced everywhere; Mrs. Sarner asked if public hearings must be set on all of those that would be invalid; Mr. Locher indicated this would be correct. There was some discussion as to whether action was necessary based on the section reading, "shall be void and revert tothe original zoning" and the section stating special use permits must be treated asministratively as if they were a rezoni; however, this was felt to be essentially for special use permits that were already in existance. Mr. Locher felt that if the words "special use permit" were included in Section 6.21, it would be very clear, butthat a court case to determine the meaning would be expensive. The opinions expressed in Mr. Locher's letter were further discussed as to the probable outcome of a court case. Mr. DeNuccio felt that Mr. Pesker's opinion, out of the four opinions was more inclined to see the chance of teh special use permit being upheld in court, but that the majority of the people contacted by Mr. Locher felt that "special use permit" had been in- tended in section 6.21: therefore, no action was necessary. However, he felt the Council needed to make a decision that, in effect, special use III permits were intended in that section. Mr. Benson pointed out that sy the last meeting Mr. Locher had particularly wanted to contact Mr. Van Housen, who had stated that the intention was to control particular land usage and to force developers to proceed with development of the land rather than to merely sepculate. Mr. Locher felt that the zoning map should be taken care of, and also felt that the matter could be litigated for years, and that everyone he had contacted had suggested a compromise. Mr. Van Housen