Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 3 Uses—Property owner seeks conditional use permit Township says it has no authority to issue such a permit Citation: Restore House, Inc. v. Helga Tp., 2014 WL 7237354 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014) MINNESOTA (12/22/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a township had the legal authority to grant a request for a conditional use permit. The Background/Facts: Restore House, Inc. ("Restore House") oper- ated a six -resident chemical dependency treatment facility ("facility") in Helga Township (the "Township"). The facility was located in a large house on a 14 -acre lot zoned "Agricultural/Rural Residential." In that zon- ing district, state licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons was allowed as of right. In February 2013, Restore House applied for a conditional use permit ("CUP") that would allow it to serve nine, rather than just six, residents on the property. The public objected to the CUP, expressing fear that the residents would menace the community Ultimately, the Township's Board of Supervisors (the "Board") denied the CUP. The Board's stated reasons for the denial included findings that the planned use would: "be detrimental to the public safety . . . ;" and would be an "incompatible" use, changing the essential character of the primarily residential area. Restore House sued the Township. It asked the district court to declare that the Board's denial of its CUP request was based on insufficient and discriminatory grounds. Among other things, Restore House argued that the explanations for the denial were factually and legally deficient, and that the denial also discriminated against the disabled. The Township argued that the governing zoning ordinance did not au- thorize it to grant the CUP. The district court entered judgment against Restore House. It agreed with the Township, finding that the governing zoning ordinance gave the Board no legal authority to approve the CUP application. Restore House appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota agreed with the Township and the district court. It held that the governing zoning ordinance gave the Board no legal authority to approve the CUP application. In so holding, the court noted that the state legislature, under Minn. Stat. § 462.357 authorizes town boards to designate land uses by zoning ordinances, and under Minn. Stat. § 462.3595, authorizes town boards "by © 2015 Thomson Reuters 7