Laserfiche WebLink
gravel operation and its nonconforming status as <br />discussed infra. Relevant characteristics of a <br />commercial excavation operation from a land use <br />perspective include the removal of a large volume of <br />material over a substantial time period, a high volume <br />of truck traffic in and out of the property, use of the <br />type of equipment generally associated with a commercial <br />operation, and most importantly, the impact on the <br />surrounding neighborhood similar to that of a commercial <br />operation. euswell v. Munici alit of Anchora e, 714 <br />P.2d 1288 (Alaska 986). F nancia transactions are not <br />determinative of a commercial land use. Id. Note should <br />further be made that the County's present special use <br />requirements and standards do not consider the <br />commercial nature of a mineral or natural resource <br />extraction use. <br />C. <br />Vesting and Pre-existing/NOnconforming Use of the Gravel <br />Operation Resulting from the Board's 1974 Location Approval. <br />1. Generally, a nonconforming use is permitted to continue, <br />if the right had "vested" prior to the enactment, or <br />amendment, of zoning legislation. The terms "vested <br />right" and "existing or nonconforming use" are used <br />interchangeably and are based on similar legal <br />principles. <br />The general law is that in order to acquire a vested <br />right, and thus, have the right to continue a use in <br />accordance with the terms of previous governmental <br />approvals, one must have: (1) a valid building permit, <br />or the equivalent thereof in the circumstance that a <br />building permit is not required, whether or not issued <br />in error; and (2) good faith detrimental reliance <br />(performed substantial work and incurred substantial <br />liabilities) on the permit (post-permit reliance). See <br />Cline v. City of Boulder, 450 P.2d 335 (Colo. 1969j; <br />Denver Police Protective Association v. Cit and Count <br />of Denver, 710 P.2d 3 (Colo.App. 9 ); E am v. A ers, <br />636 P.2~ 168 (Colo.App. 19801; Tri-State Generation, <br />Inc. v. Board of Count Commissioners, 600 P.2 03 <br />Co o.App. 979); Witkin Homes, Inc. v. City and Coin <br />of Denver, 504 P.2d 112 (Co o.App. 1972); Avco <br />Comm-'-'unity Developer, Inc. v. South Coast Regional <br />It is almost universally held that the mere purchase of <br />property and occupation thereof are not sufficient <br />factors, either severally or jointly, to establish an <br />existing nonconforming use, and a vested right to a <br />nonconforming use cannot exist unless the particular use <br />in question is in fact established prior to the <br />enactment of the zoning ordinance. Anderson v. Island <br />- 4 - <br />