Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2003

Home

September 25, 2003 -- Pa~ 3 The court agreed that the 60-day period started to run from May 15, the ~-day the request was amended. The court noted it' the original filing date was the- date to start the 60-day period, the amended request could have. been filed just days pr/or to the hearing without ~ving city officials sufficient time to con- sider the changes. Citation: Tollefson Development lncv. City of Elk River, CoUrt of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C9-03-176 (2003). see also: Jorgensen v. Knurson, 662 N.W. 2d 893 (2003). Special Permits -- Owner seeks to add boat slips to pier Permit denied despite OK by harbor management commission CC~NNECTICUT (7/22/03) -- Oakbridge/Rogers Avenue Realty LLC owned property located adjacent to the harbor in a single-family residential zone. "~ 1967, the owner at that time obtained a special permit allowing the construc- tion of two boat slips. A subsequent owner was ~anted an amended special permit al/owing four boat slips. Oakbridge petitioned to have the special permit amended again so as t° allow up to eight boat slips. The planning and zoning board (board) conducted a heating, and the owner provided the board with a statement of use, indicalmg that the Harbor Management Commission (commission) found the proposed application was consistent with the harbor management plan. The owner also presented expert testimony that eight slips would produce the same traffic as with the addition of a' new single-family home on that s~eet. The owner also opined that property values would not be affected. While some of the owner's neighbors supported his prQposal, several neighbors opposed the petition. Some of these witnesses noted that even with four slips, there were several occasions when eight to nine boats were l~ed up to the e,'dsting four slips. Many of these boats did not belong to the owner. Other concerns were raised related to the change in character of the area and the possibility that the slips would be used for commercial activities. The board finally denied the permit application, stating the petition for additional boat slips was inconsistent with the residential zone district within wh/ch the property was located. The ownar appealed to the lower court, which found the board had ex- ceeded its authority in denying the petition on the ground that increased utili- zation of a permitted use was inconsistent with the zone in which the property was located. The raised concerns were related to the' use or misuse of the slips, and these were matters for the enforcement of the city's zoning regulations and not a reason for denying the special use permit. The board appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board should have granted the permits. The board had the discretion to ~ant special permits, and its decision had 109