04-25-2007 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor and City Council April 25, 2007 Page 6 (c) Trisko v. City of Waite Park, 566 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. App. 1997), (Minn. Sept. 25, 1997) (CUP denial for aggregate quarry reversed based on overly vague concerns for public health and safety and on failure to impose additional conditions to control dust and vibration). (d) But see also Roselawn Cemetery v. City of Roseville, 689 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. App. 2004) (holding that protection of general public health, safety and welfare is a valid basis to deny a conditional use permit) - Cemetery failed to meet its burden of showing that toxic compounds emitted by proposed crematorium in a residential neighborhood 2,500 feet away from a reservoir supplying drinking water would not affect the general health, welfare, and public safety, even though expert's opinion was that operation of crematorium would not affect public health, and thus city did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it denied cemetery's request for a conditional use permit, where expert did not claim any expertise in the health sciences, and area residents had conducted research on the pollutants likely to be emitted and provided exhibits supporting their statements. b. Standard of Review. A zoning authority's decision on a CUP is quasi - judicial. The standard of review in a quasi - judicial CUP decision is whether the zoning authority's action was reasonable as "measured by the standards set out in the particular local ordinance." Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 417 (Minn. 1981). In quasi - judicial zoning, public policy has already been established, whereas in legislative zoning (comprehensive plan or rezoning), the municipal body is formulating public policy. Consequently, a CUP is held to a less deferential standard of review than a legislative zoning or rezoning decision. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 417 (Minn. 1981). (Emphasis added.) (1) CUP approvals are held to a more deferential standard of review than CUP denials. See, e.g., In re Block, 727 N.W.2d 166, (Minn. App. 2007)• Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners, 617 N.W.2d 566, 579 (Minn. 2000); Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 244 N.W.2d 482, 486 (Minn. 1976), overruled on other grounds by Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1979). In conclusion, our client has worked diligently over several months to satisfy building code issues. In fact, our client cooperated with an inspection of the Property that occurred as recently as yesterday. Although those issues do not bear on re- issuance of the CUP, we have summarized the recent chronology of building code matters for the record in the attached Exhibit A. - 2 5 -