Laserfiche WebLink
12 <br />c. If there are specific standards/factors set forth for the issuance of the conditional <br />use permit and the applicant proves he or she satisfies them, then the conditional <br />use permit must be granted. <br /> <br />d. In a 2015 case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a standard in a zoning <br />ordinance that required the applicant to show that a proposed use would not be <br />injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, <br />safety or welfare was sufficient under law. See RDNT v. City of Bloomington, <br />861 N. W.2d 71 (Minn. 2015). <br /> <br />3. Lino Lakes Ordinance Provisions <br /> <br />a. § 1007.016 contains the standards pertinent to condition use permits. <br /> <br />b. The ordinance provision contains a sunset clause that requires commencement of <br /> a project within one year of the date of the CUP, or the CUP is void. <br /> <br />4. The Imposition of Conditions. <br /> <br />a. There must be a nexus between the condition imposed and the land use desired. <br />A recent U.S. Supreme Court case may have implications in this area. Koontz v. <br />St. John’s River Water Management District, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013) discusses <br />the concepts of nexus and rough proportionality in the context of attaching <br />conditions to an approval. <br /> <br />b. The Court’s decision in Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. <br />App. 1986), is a good example of the “nexus.” In this case, the city had required <br />donation of land for a collector street as a condition of permit approval. On <br />remand in the district court, the court held there was not a sufficient nexus <br />between the proposed land use and the need for collector road. <br /> <br />c. Violation of a condition may be sufficient grounds for revocation of the permit. <br /> <br />d. For some time there was uncertainty in the law as to whether the failure to <br />consider mitigating conditions that are raised at the time of the hearing may <br />support a conclusion that a denial of the permit was arbitrary, or whether the <br />municipality had a duty to suggest or impose mitigating conditions. Two cases <br />in 2009 suggested that should be done. See In re Lawrence, 2009 WL 438058 <br />(Minn. App. 2009) and Buberl Recycling & Compost, Inc. v. Chisago County, <br />2009 WL 274623 (Minn. App. 2009). See also, Trisko v. County of Waite Park, <br />566 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. App. 1997). But other cases appear to take an opposite <br />view. See Kotten v. Brown County, 2011 WL 382811 (Minn. App.2011) and <br />VONCO v. Mower County, 2013 WL 599370 (Minn. App.2013). This issue was