09-20-2018 Council and Advisory Boards Joint Meeting Packet

Home Search

c. If there are specific standards/factors set forth for the issuance of the conditional use permit and the applicant proves he or she satisfies them, then the conditional use permit must be granted. d. In a 2015 case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a standard in a zoning ordinance that required the applicant to show that a proposed use would not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, safety or welfare was sufficient under law. See RDFT v. City of Bloomington, 861 I\ . W.2d 71 (Minn. 2015). 3 Lino Lakes Ordinance Provisions a. § 1007.016 contains the standards pertinent to condition use permits b. The ordinance provision contains a sunset clause that requires commencement of a project within one year of the date of the CUP, or the CUP is void. 4. The Imposition of Conditions. a. There must be a nexus between the condition imposed and the land use desired. A recent U.S. Supreme Court case may have implications in this area. Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management District, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013) discusses the concepts of nexus and rough proportionality in the context of attaching conditions to an approval. b. The Court's decision in Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, 3871\.W.2d 190 (Minn App. 1986), is a good example of the "nexus " In this case, the city had required donation of land for a collector street as a condition of pennnt approval. On remand in the district court, the court held there was not a sufficient nexus between the proposed land use and the need for collector road. Violation of a condition may be sufficient grounds for revocation of the penniit. d. For some time there was uncertainty in the law as to whether the failure to consider mitigating conditions that are raised at the time of the hearing may support a conclusion that a denial of the peiinit was arbitrary, or whether the municipality had a duty to suggest or impose mitigating conditions Two cases in 2009 suggested that should be done. See In re Lawrence, 2009 WL 438058 (Minn App. 2009) and Buberl Recycling & Compost, Inc. v. Chisago County, 2009 WL 274623 (Minn. App. 2009). See also, Trisko v. County of Waite Park, 566 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. App. 1997). But other cases appear to take an opposite view See Kotten v. Brown County, 2011 WL 382811 (Minn App.2011) and VONCO v. Mower.County, 2013 WL 599370 (Minn. App.2013). This issue was 12