§
Subdivision 1.Authority.
The governing body may by ordinance designate certain types of developments, including planned unit developments, and certain land development activities as conditional uses under zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approved by the governing body or other designated authority by a showing by the applicant that the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall include both general requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar as practicable, requirements specific to each designated conditional use.
§
Subd. 2.Public hearings.
Public hearings on the granting of conditional use permits shall be held in the manner provided in section 462.357, subdivision 3.
§
Subd. 3.Duration.
A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the municipality from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses.
§
Subd. 4.Recording of permit.
A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be recorded with the county recorder or registrar of titles of the county or counties in which the municipality is located for record. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of the property included.
Notes of Decisions
Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester, 465 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Having determined that appellant has a protectible property interest in the CUP, the question is whether the city’s conduct in denying the CUP violated appellant’s constitutionally protected interest.”
SuperAmerica Grp., Inc. v. City of Little Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “SuperAmerica does not challenge the city’s authority to require a conditional use permit under Minn.Stat. § 462.3595, subd. 1 (1994). Rather, Super-America argues the city’s comprehensive land use plan provides a legally insufficient basis for denying SuperAmerica’s conditional…”
Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester, 457 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× ““A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed * * Minn.Stat. § 462.3595, subd. 3 (Supp.1985).”
Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood, 770 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 462.3595, subd. 4 (2008). CUPs are perpetual in nature and “remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed.”
Fryberger v. Twp. of Fredenberg, 428 N.W.2d 601 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 462.3595, subd. 1 (1986). The Town Board of Supervisors had authority not only to delegate the power to grant permits, but also to set up a process for administrative review with itself as the final arbiter.”
White v. City of Elk River, 822 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Rather, the nonconforming use is then defined by the conditions contained in the conditional-use permit, and any use outside of the permit parameters may be an unlawful expansion of the nonconforming use.”
Tillman Infrastructure LLC v. Stearns Cnty. (D. Minnesota 2026).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 462.3595 , subdiv. 1. “Ruling on a conditional use permit application is a quasi-judicial act” and “is reviewable by writ of certiorari.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.