White v. City of Elk River
| Decision Date | 29 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. A12–0681.,A12–0681. |
| Citation | 822 N.W.2d 320 |
| Parties | Lorraine WHITE, Trustee for the Lorraine M. White Trust, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF ELK RIVER, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
When the lawful use of property under a conditional-use permit later becomes a nonconforming use, the permit does not expire and the property must remain in compliance with the permit conditions to be a lawful nonconforming use entitled to the protections of Minn.Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e (2010).
James G. Robin, Gregory E. Woodford, Wayzata Law Group, LLC, Wayzata, MN, and Bryan R. Battina, Battina Law, PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, for respondents.
George C. Hoff, Shelley M. Ryan, Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A., Eden Prairie, MN, for appellant.
Susan L. Naughton, League of Minnesota Cities, St. Paul, MN, for amicus curiae.
Considered and decided by CHUTICH, Presiding Judge; HALBROOKS, Judge; and TOUSSAINT, Judge.*
In this land-use dispute, appellant City of Elk River challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents Wapiti Park Campgrounds, Inc. and Lorraine White, Trustee for the Lorraine M. White Trust. The city contends that the district court erred in concluding that it could not revoke Wapiti Park's conditional-use permit after its campground became a nonconforming use, even though the campground violated certain conditions of the permit. Because we conclude that the city was entitled to terminate Wapiti Park's use of the property through revocation of the conditional-use permit, we reverse.
Wapiti Park Campgrounds (Wapiti Park), owned by the Lorraine White Trust, operates on approximately 52 acres of property located in Elk River. When Wapiti Park opened in 1973, no zoning ordinance governed use of the land. The first zoning requirement relevant to this appeal occurred in 1983, when the city made campgrounds a conditionally permitted use in the zoning district where Wapiti Park was located. In 1984, the city granted Wapiti Park a conditional-use permit with nine conditions, one of which prohibited permanent residents at the campground.
The city again amended its zoning ordinances in 1988, removing campgrounds as a conditionally permitted use in the zoning district in which Wapiti Park was located. Wapiti Park became a legal, nonconforming use, and the parties agree that the campground has held this designation since 1988.
When Wapiti Park opened, it contained one building used as an office, laundry, restaurant, and gathering place for campers. The building also contained showers and other facilities required of campgrounds by the Minnesota Department of Health. The building was completely destroyed by fire in 1999. Wapiti Park sought to rebuild the building in 2000, but before issuing a building permit, the city required Wapiti Park to apply for an interim-use permit because the building was an accessory to the nonconforming campground. 1 The city granted the interim-use permit, with the condition that it was valid for 10 years, or the earlier of when the property is redeveloped or ownership transferred. Neither the planning commission nor the city council expressed any concerns regarding permanent residents at Wapiti Park when issuing the interim-use permit in 2000, but neither the interim-use permit nor the subsequently issued building permit altered the terms of the underlying conditional-use permit. After obtaining the building permit, Wapiti Park rebuilt its building.
The 2000 interim-use permit expired in 2010, and Wapiti Park applied for a new interim-use permit to continue use of the reconstructed building. The city reviewed the campground as part of this interim-use request “[b]ecause the structure is accessory to (subordinate and serving) the principle [sic] use” of the campground. After inspecting the campground, the city concluded that “a number of people use the campground as permanent housing, even through the winter months” and that several campsites included more “permanent” improvements, including “exterior insulation, exterior steps, sheds, [and] porches.” Several vehicles also had other alterations suggesting they were not portable campers, including “rigid piping connecting the vehicle to the sanitary system” and window air conditioners. Testimony at the planning commission public hearing also suggested that a number of people make Wapiti Park their permanent, year-round home. The city found that this permanent use of the campground violated conditions in the 1984 conditional-use permit.
The city gave Wapiti Park several months to show compliance with the conditions of the 1984 conditional-use permit. When it failed to do so, the city council adopted a proposed resolution denying the interim-use permit and commencing proceedings to revoke the 1984 conditional-use permit. The city council held three public hearings on revocation of the conditional-use permit, and, in July 2011, ultimately passed a resolution conditionally revoking the permit. After the campground failed to comply with the conditions in the July 2011 resolution, the revocation of the 1984 conditional-use permit became effective on December 31, 2011.
Wapiti Park sued the city, seeking declaratory judgment on several grounds—in effect asking the district court to find that the campground was a legal, nonconforming use and that the city erroneously revoked its permits. Wapiti Park also brought a tort claim asserting that the city intentionally interfered with its business by causing many “longer term campers” not to renew their “rental contracts.” The parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted partial summary judgment for Wapiti Park. It found that the campground was a legal, nonconforming use, the city could not eliminate this use by revoking the 1984 conditional-use permit, and Wapiti Park was entitled to rebuild the building in 2000 without a permit from the city. The city now appeals.
Can the city terminate Wapiti Park's nonconforming use by revoking the 1984 conditional-use permit?
A grant of summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we “review the record to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Dahlin v. Kroening, 796 N.W.2d 503, 504 (Minn.2011). Where there are no disputed factual issues, we review legal determinations de novo to determine whether the district court erroneously applied the law. SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., Inc. v. Washburn–McReavy Funeral Corp., 795 N.W.2d 855, 861 (Minn.2011). The city does not allege any genuine issues of material fact, and we conclude that none exist.2
Although municipalities have broad discretion to make zoning decisions, we may “reverse the municipality's decision if its reasons are legally insufficient or if the decision is without factual basis.” Cnty. of Morrison v. Wheeler, 722 N.W.2d 329, 334 (Minn.App.2006) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 2006); see also Lam v. City of St. Paul, 714 N.W.2d 740, 743 (Minn.App.2006) . The city contends that the district court erred in concluding that it could not eliminate the nonconforming use by revoking the 1984 conditional-use permit.
To address the issue of whether the 1984 conditional-use permit was still in effect after Wapiti Park's use became nonconforming, and whether the city has the authority to revoke the permit, we must construe Minn.Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e(a), which governs nonconforming uses of property. With exceptions not relevant here, the statute provides in pertinent part:
Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance,or improvement, but not including expansion....
(Emphasis added.) “It is a fundamental principle of the law of real property that uses lawfully existing at the time of an adverse zoning change may continue to exist until they are removed or otherwise discontinued.” Hooper v. City of St. Paul, 353 N.W.2d 138, 140 (Minn.1984).
The city contends that because, in 2010, Wapiti Park was no longer in compliance with the 1984 permit conditions, the use was no longer “lawful” under section 462.357, subdivision 1e(a), and, therefore, Wapiti Park was not allowed to continue the nonconforming use. We agree for the following reasons.
The construction of statutes is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn.2009). If the statute's language is clear, and not ambiguous, we construe it according to its plain meaning. Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn.2010). Our goal when construing statutory provisions is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2010). “We construe statutes to effect their essential purpose but will not disregard a statute's clear language to pursue the spirit of the law.” Lee v. Fresenius Med. Care, Inc., 741 N.W.2d 117, 123 (Minn.2007).
Applying these principles, we conclude that section 462.357, subdivision 1e(a), is not ambiguous. The language of the statute provides that, to be a protected nonconforming use, the use must have been “lawful” at the time it became nonconforming. At the time of the 1988 amendment to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vazquez v. State
-
White v. City of Elk River, A12–0681.
...the building and resume its use without obtaining the interim-use permit. The court of appeals reversed. White v. City of Elk River, 822 N.W.2d 320 (Minn.App.2012). The court of appeals determined that Wapiti Park's operation of the campground became a nonconforming use after the last zonin......
- State v. Amundson
-
White v. City of Elk River, A12-0681.
...the building and resume its use without obtaining the interim-use permit. The court of appeals reversed. White v. City of Elk River, 822 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. App.2012). The court of appeals determined that Wapiti Park's operation of the campground became a nonconforming use after the last zoni......