White v. City of Elk River
840 N.W.2d 43
Minn.2013Background
- Wapiti Park has operated a campground in Elk River since 1973; zoning in 1980 made campgrounds a nonconforming (preexisting) use.
- In 1984 Wapiti Park obtained a conditional-use permit with conditions (including prohibiting permanent residences and requiring wheels on vehicles); in 1988 the city removed campgrounds from permitted and conditional uses.
- The campground’s original accessory building burned in 1999; Wapiti Park reconstructed after the city required and issued a 10-year interim-use permit in 2000 and renewed it in 2010 subject to conditions that incorporated the 1984 conditions.
- City inspections revealed apparent permanent residency and other violations; the City refused to renew the interim-use permit and revoked the 1984 conditional-use permit.
- Wapiti Park sued, seeking declarations that (a) its campground remained a protected nonconforming use independent of the conditional-use permit, and (b) it had the right to replace the destroyed accessory building without an interim-use permit; the district court sided with Wapiti Park, the court of appeals reversed; the Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obtaining a conditional-use permit in 1984 extinguished Wapiti Park’s preexisting nonconforming-use rights | White: obtaining the permit did not waive or extinguish the 1980 nonconforming status | City: accepting the permit brought the use under permit conditions and ended protected nonconforming status | Court: obtaining the conditional-use permit did not, standing alone, waive nonconforming rights; waiver requires knowledge + intent and was not shown |
| Whether the City may terminate a nonconforming use by revoking a conditional-use permit for violations | White: revocation cannot terminate a constitutionally/statutorily protected nonconforming use except as provided by statute or agreement | City: permit violation made the use unlawful and subject to termination by revocation | Court: revocation is not one of the statutorily authorized means to terminate a nonconforming use; revocation did not terminate Wapiti Park’s nonconforming-rights |
| Whether the City lawfully required an interim-use permit to replace a destroyed accessory building | White: replacement of an accessory building (value <50% of campground) could proceed without an interim permit under current statutory rule | City: city ordinance in effect at the time measured 50% against the building and required city permission because the loss exceeded 50% of the building’s value | Court: the city ordinance in effect then measured destruction against the building; because the building was a total loss (>50% of its value), city properly required an interim-use permit |
Key Cases Cited
- Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2010) (describing nonconforming-use protection)
- Hawkins v. Talbot, 80 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 1957) (upholding municipal zoning power and discussing limits)
- County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 203 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. 1972) (policy favoring gradual elimination of nonconforming uses)
- Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. 2009) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right)
- Frandsen v. Ford Motor Co., 801 N.W.2d 177 (Minn. 2011) (elements of waiver: knowledge and intent)