Laserfiche WebLink
further consideration: Has the conditional use permit lapsed <br />because the applicant discontinued use of the property for the <br />purpose for which the conditional use permit was granted? <br />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 />1960 Shoreline Drive has not been used for sailboat sales and <br />nautical retail store or any other use within the last twelve <br />months. As such, by operation 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 must <br />comply with the permitted uses i* an LR-IA District. A fishing <br />supply retail operation is not - permitted use in the LR-IA <br />District. <br />If the 1987 Conditional Use Permit har. lapsed. the <br />applicant may only use the property for purposes permitted in an <br />LR-IA District. Since retail operations are not permitted in an <br />LR-IA 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. <br />part <br />SUMMARY. <br />Minnesota Statute Section 463.357, subd. 6 provides in <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 />grant a variance to allow this proposed use. How< -r, the City <br />may be able to grant variances to the "non-c nforminn use” <br />sections of the Code and perhaps still not vie ate the above <br />statutory provision. A preliminary review of Minnesota case law <br />does not reveal any case on point. We have not reviewed this <br />issue in other jurisdictions which should be done if the City <br />wishes to consider such variances. <br />-4-