05-28-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, , , .,-^,-1 iQfl^ Sv-=n if the use for the sits wasnot conciudad unti* -yo^. -^-u -- "escaJjlishsd,- for at least several years, no use was made of the This brings the case well within the purview of section 522.170. ^ The reasons for cassation of the use are irrelevant .^ect. on 522.170 clearly provides a conditional usa perait shall expire if the conditional use ceases for more than one year 'for any rea*m.' We find no exception to t.ha rule which provides tolling the one-yeer iiinlt for purposes of litigation. Public policy considerations also mandate our conclusion that the conditional use permit expired. Requiring a new application for a conditional use permit allow, the City and the public to review the new application based on updated Information and under current conditions. To hold otherwise would frustrate the purpose of time limitations in the ordinances. If a developer's conditional use permit expires, it must apply ior a new conditional use permit under the presently existing conditions. As a matter of law, the conditional use permit issued by the City to L.C.A. in 1985 expired and is no longer valid. Me order summary Judgment on count II of the complaint, concerning the •xplration of conditional use pertnit. decision Tho district court orrad in applying a raaaonabianaaa standard to tho daciaion o£ the City council. The court should have undortaken a da novo raview to determine whether the conditional use permit expired.It was therefore error to dismiss the - 9 -