04-25-2007 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor and City Council April 25, 2007 Page 5 road or use a disproportionate share of the road's capacity. Second, the board's finding that the "intensity" of the slaughterhouse will interfere with neighbors' recreational enjoyment of property was not substantiated by evidence in the record where the board provided no independent analysis or statistics in support of its decision and did not establish a causal link between the intensity of the operation and the degree of disturbance the operation will cause, or explain why the proposed slaughterhouse would be disruptive in an agricultural district containing feedlots and adjacent steel scrap yards. Finally, the board could not legally base denial of a CUP on compliance with state standards where the board lacks authority to enforce compliance with those standards and where the CUP applicant informed the board of his intent to comply with all applicable state standards and expressed a willingness to accept a condition requiring verification of regulatory compliance prior to permit issuance. (a) See also, Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. App. 1988), rev. denied, (Minn. March 23, 1988) (City Council acted arbitrarily when it denied a conditional use permit to a lumber company for operation of a gravel pit where the company had met all zoning code requirements, had agreed to comply with twenty additional conditions imposed by the city upon granting of the permit, and neighboring land owners expressed only their own opinions and provided no expert testimony to support the view that the gravel operation would adversely affect their land.) (2) Vague invocations of public health, safety and welfare concerns as the basis for denial of a CUP may render the denial arbitrary and capricious. (a) BECA of Alexandra LLP v. County of Douglas, 607 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. App. 2000). (CUP denial for lake lot development was arbitrary where based on DNR letter stating water quality concerns; court said "any type of development will have an impact on the aquatic environment, whereas depth of bay, which is not in the record, is not directly related to public safety, health, and welfare. ") (b) In Re Livingood, 594 N.W.2d 889 (Minn. 1999) and 1998 WL 531759 (Minn. App. 1998). (Local body cannot deny CUP simply based on unspecified "health risks;" denial of CUP for hog feedlot reversed and county not allowed to supplement in court record of reasons for denial.) - 2 4 -