Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Page 6- July 10, 1999 Z.B. ~ /20 Board -- Court admonishes board for failing to give reason for its decision MINNESOTA (5/11/99) -- Hamilton bought lakefront property in Stearns County. He wanted to build a permanent dock on his property and hired an engineer to design the dock and to supervise construction. The engineer contacted the county environmental services department to check the county's zoning restrictions. The county referred the engineer to the state natural resources department, saying it didn't have jurisdiction over docks in public waters. The natural resources department issued Hamilton a dock permit but warned him that any construction above the high water level might require a county permit. Hamilton began building the dock without getting a permit from the county. After construction began, the county told Hamilton he was violating a county shoreline ordinance governing the filling of lakefront property. Hamilton applied for an "after-the-fact" conditional use permit, which county zoning regulations allowed. The county planning commission held a public hearing, at which various neighbors complained: · the dock and retaining walls were out of character on the lake, · there was no need for a permanent dock, · soil erosion from docks had a negative impact on the lake, · the dock closed an access road, · allowing a permanent dock set an undesirable precedent, · support beams in the water were a safety hazard, and · a permanent dock wouldn't withstand ice formation in the winter. The commission denied Hamilton's request, and Hamilton appealed to court. The court returned the matter to the commission, finding it gave no reason for its decision and that the record pr6vided no factual basis for the decision. At its second hearing, the commission simply adopted the neighbors' origi~ hal complaints as its formal findings and included those items in the record as the basis for its decision. The commission again denied Hamilton's request and ordered him to restore the area to its original condition. Hamilton appealed again. DECISION: Reversed. The commission had to issue Hamilton a permit. The trial court gave the commission a chance to articulate the reasoning behind its decision, but the commission "utterly failed to do so,. There was no question the planning commission had the authority to con- trol lakefront property. However, though the commission held a public meet- ing, listened to comments, and read letters, it failed to state the reasons for its decision. Even after meeting again, ali it did was adopt the neighbors' conclusory complaints. The commission didn't provide any additional factual basis or reasoning for denying the permit. Nor did it explain its findings and apply them to the zoning ordinance. It merely made conclusory statements. Hamilton v. Cottnty of Stearns, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C0-98- 1913 (1999). .: