Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Page 8 -- November 25, 1998 Z.B. to build three additional confinement facilities near their feedlot. This would expand their feedlot from 2,000 to 4,000 animals. The planning commission recommended the county board deny the Bryans' request because odor created by the lot expansion would reduce property val- ues in the area and would have a negative impact on "livability" for residents in the immediate area. The commission also said the expansion would impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding properties. The board denied the Bryans' request. It relied on the commission's rec- ommendation and on a portion of the county planning ordinance. The Legisla- ture enacted the ordinance portion about one month after the Bryans filed their conditional use application. The Bryans appealed to court, arguing there was no evidence to support the board's findings. They also argued the board couldn't rely on the planning ordinance because it was enacted after they applied for a permit to expand their feedlot. The Bryans claimed the only expert evidence the board considered showed there was a t~ositive correlation between feedlots and property values. They claimed they lived in an agricultural district that encouraged farm develop- ment and six of their neighbors wrote letters supporting their proposed expan- sion. The Bryans also pointed out one board member voted in favor of their request because nobody had expressed concerns about odors or property values. The Bryans asked the court to reverse the board's decision. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board. The board's denial of the Bryans' conditional use permit was arbitrary. The board's link between odor from the facilities and a decrease in the surrounding area's value and livability was totally unsupported by the evi- dence; vague concerns weren't enough to deny a conditional use request. The only expert evidence the boar considered indicated feedlots h~creased property values. The Bryans lived in an agricultural district that encouraged farm uses. Not only had nobody complained about odor problems or reduced property values, six of the Bryans' neighbors suplgorted the expansion of the feedlot. Even one of the board members voted to approve their application because there was no public opposition to the expansion. The board couldn't rely on the planning ordinance to deny the Bryans' application because the provision in question wasn't enacted until one month after they filed their application. Given that the Legislature passed the provi- sion after the Bryans applied for a conditional use permit and the county board gave no reasons for its enactment of the provision, the provision couldn't ap- ply retroactively and couldn't be used as a basis for denying the Bryans' re- quest. see also: Ube/ v. State, 547 N. I44.2d 366 (1996). see also: Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Svee, 226 N. W. 2d 306 (1975).