Laserfiche WebLink
Fr <br />r <br />•I <br />K <br />further consideration: Has tne ccncitior.a^usa perr:it .aosec <br />because the "applicant discontinued use of che pr:oerry for the <br />purpose for which the conditional use permit was granted. <br />J Orono Municipal Code Section 10.3, subd. 5E <br />provides: <br />Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a <br />structure or land is discontinued and remains <br />discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months, <br />any future use of said structure or land shall be <br />in conformity with the provisions of this Zoning <br />Chapter. <br />we understand from staff that the property located at <br />I960 Shoreline Drive has not been used for sailboat sales and <br />naii^iral retail store or any other use within the last t.^elve <br />Sontir ^rsuch b^opLation of law under the Code, the 1987 <br />Conditional Use Permit lapsed. If the conditional use permit has <br />lapsed or been abandoned, then under Orono Municipal Code <br />Section 10.3, subd. 5E any prospective use of the property musc <br />comply with the permitted uses in an DR-IA District. A f sh g <br />supply retail operation is not a permitted use in the .wR-lA <br />District. <br />If the 1987 Conditional Use Permit ha- lapsed. the <br />2|!ir”\tT?$tr"1ini: ^e^^afrip^r^rtions 7rrno%= in <br />District, the Council should not approve the application. <br />Arguably, a variance to Code Section 10.3, subd. 5E may <br />also be granted, although there is no Minnesota case on point. <br />III.SUMMARY <br />part: <br />^ Minnesota Statute Section 463.357, subd. 6 provides <br />The board of appeals and adjustments or the <br />governing body, as the case may be, may not <br />permit as a variance any use that is not <br />permitted under the ordinance for property in the <br />zone where the affected person’s land is located. <br />Clearly, under usual circumstances, the City could not <br />arant a variance to allow this proposed use. However, the City <br />may be able to grant variances to the “non-conforming use <br />sections of the Code and perhaps still not violate the above <br />statutory provision. A preliminary review of Minnesota case law <br />5o« not Reveal any case on point. We have not renewed this <br />issue in other jurisdictions which should be done if the City <br />wishes to consider such variances. <br />-4-