Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

Page 8. July 1996 was made out to the wrong agency, Ray had not made the required payment. According to the board, it had no jurisdiction without payment. Ray appealed to court. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board. :' The board improperly dismissed Ray's appeal. The case was returned to the board for further proceedings. Although the board's rule stated it would not accept the filing of a notice without payment, it did not say the board would lose jurisdiction when it accepted : a notice without proper payment. State law did not make payment a jurisdic- tional issue either; only filing of the notice was jurisdictional. The. form of payment seemed more like a technical violation. U.S. National Bank v. Lloyd's, 382 :P. 2d 851 (1964). Gordon v. City of Beaverton, 637 P. 2d 125 (1981). Jurisdiction -- Can ordinance let appeal skip over board of adjustment to court? Toby's of Alexandria Inc. v. County of Douglas, 545 N. W. 2d 54 (Minnesota) 1996 Toby's of Alexandria Inc. wanted to run a restaurant in Douglas County, : Minn. tt applied for a conditional-use permit. Under the state enabling statute, county administrative officers could issue conditional-use permits after being ordered to do so by the governing board of commissioners. The statute didn't state how to appeal from permit decisions, but boards of adjustment had power to hear appeals from administrative offi- cials' decisions. Appeals from board-of-adjustment decisions were supposed to go to court. The statute didn't prevent counties from specifying routes of appeal. It also stated, "Official controls shall be adopted by ordinance and may include but are not limited to the features set forth in this section." After a public hearing, the county Planning Commission recommended that the county Board of Commissioners approve the' applicativn. However, the commissioners denied it. :~ The county's zoning ordinance gave the commissioners power over condi- tional-use-permit decisions. It also allowed people to appeal denials of condi- tional-use permits directly to court instead of first going to the Board of Adjust- ment, which is what the company did. The commissioners asked the court to dismiss the case, saying the court had no jurisdiction. The court dismissed the case. The company appealed, claiming the ordinance gave the court .jurisdiction. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The lower court was wrong to dismiss the case. The ordinance -- which the enabling act gave the county power to pass -- allowed the-company to appeal to court directly. The enabling act didn't stop the county from specifying where appeals could go, and gave counties permission to go beyond the specific powers listed. Neitzel v. County of Redwood, 521 N.W. 2d 73 (1994). Dietz v. Dodge County, 487N. W. 2d 237 (1992).