Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Z.B. September 25, i998 -- Page 7 Conditional Use -- Owner wants to add additional animal units to pig feedlot Citation: Manco of Fair~nont Inc. v. Town Board of Rock Deli Township, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. CX-98-610 (1998) Manco of Fairmont Inc. owned a pig feedlot in the township of Rock Dell, Minn. It wanted to increase the lot from 2,000 to 4,000 animal units. It applied to the town board for a conditional use permit. Under Minnesota law, the town had 60 days to make a decision on such an application or to seek an extension. Failure to deny a request within that timeframe was an automatic approval. The town could extend the time limit before the end of the 60-day period by giving the applicant written notice. The law required the town to provide "reasons" for an extension. Before the 60-day period was up, the. town sent Manco a letter stating it intended "to take an additional 60 days to ma. ke a decision on the special use permit application." The town eventually denied the permit, apparently due to zoning, a previ- ous permit to expand the tot to 2,000 units, neighbors' concerns, Manco's non- conformity regarding waste, and concern over the health and welfare of the area. Manco asked the court for an order requiring the town to approve its appli- cation. It claimed it lost a contract with Hormel worth almost $1 million be- cause of the township's failure to issue the permit. The court held a hearing. It found the town substantially complied with the law's notice requirements, so it properly denied the permit. The town didn't get notice of the hearing nor did it participate. According to the town, it was unaware of the proceedings until it received notice from the court that the court was denying Manco's request. . Manco appealed. It argued the town did not comply with state law because its extension letter failed to provide a reason for the extension. It also said the court should have considered whether the town fully complied with the law -- not whether it substantially complied. DECISION: Affirmed. The town followed state law in denying the permit. The iaw required the township to provide "reasons" for an extension. The town's letter said it needed to take more time to decide whether to grant the permit. Taking more time to make a decision was a reason. The state Legisla- ture wasn't specific when it created the law, so the town's letter was appropri- ate. The law was mandatory; it provided consequences for noncompliance. That issue was irrelevant, however, because the town complied with the notice re- quirements and made its decision on time. see also: City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele, 291 N. W. 2d 386 (1980). see also: Chandler v. Kroiss, 190 N. W. 2d 472 (1971).