Laserfiche WebLink
04-r4 00 FRI 12:26 FAX @006 <br />April 14,2000 <br />Page 5 <br />Subd. 5. Non-Conforming Uses. Any land or buildings which were actually and <br />legally devoted to a non-conforming use on January 1,1975, may be continued in said <br />non-conforming use pursuant to conditional use permit granted as hereinafter specified. <br />A. The non-conforming use may not be changed to another non- <br />conforming use. <br />(As discussed above, we believe that the non-conforming use was illegally changed from <br />at best, one dock to two docks, one owner to two owners.) <br />C. When any lawftil non-conforming use of any structure or land in any <br />district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any <br />non-conforming use. <br />(The applicant needs to show that at all times since at least 1967 there were two docks <br />and the property was owned by two different owners.) <br />E. W^lene^•er a iawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is <br />discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of Uvelve (12) months, any future use <br />of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of tins Zoning <br />Chapter. <br />(The applicant needs to show that at all times since at least 1967 there were always two <br />docks and the properly was always owned by two different owners with no lapse thereof <br />for 12 months.) <br />F. Any lav\-fiil non-conforming use of land not involving a structure, and <br />any lawful non-conforming use involving a structure with an assessor's fair market value <br />upon tlie effective date of this Zoning Chapter of $3,000.00 or less, may be coi\tinucd for <br />a period of thirty-six (36) months after the effective date of this Zoning Chapter, <br />whereupon such non-conforming use shall cease, unless brought into confonnity with the <br />Zoning Chapter <br />(We believe that as of 1968, there was at best one dock on the property and the cost <br />thereof was substantially below $3,000 and that therefore the dock should have been <br />removed by 1971. There is no exception, that is the law. If tins provision had been first <br />effective in 1975 when there was a rewrite of the ordinance, then tlie dock should have <br />been removed by 1978. The Minnesota courts have upheld similar amortization <br />37J87BDM