Laserfiche WebLink
May 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin <br />See also: Sisson v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 805 <br />A.2d 964 (D. C. 2002). <br />Case Note: <br />WECA had also argued that expansion of the grocery to three floors would harm <br />the surrounding neighborhood, but the court found no evidence of such harm had <br />been presented. <br />Permits—City denies conditional <br />use permit <br />Applicant argues denial was arbitrary and <br />capricious <br />Citation: RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 2015 WL 1215573 (Minn. <br />2015) <br />MINNESOTA (03/18/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />city acted within its discretion in denying an application for a conditional <br />use permit. <br />The Background/Facts: RDNT, LLC ("RDNT") owned Martin Luther <br />Care Campus (the "Campus") in Bloomington, Minnesota (the "City"). <br />The Campus consisted of two buildings that provided a variety of services <br />including assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing, adult day care, and <br />transitional care. In September 2011, RDNT submitted an application to <br />the City for a conditional use permit. RDNT sought to expand its assisted <br />living services by adding a third building to the Campus. The proposed ad- <br />dition would: increase the facility units by 26%; increase staff by 8%; and <br />increase the building square footage by 62%. <br />After a public hearing, the City's Planning Commission recommended <br />denial of the conditional use permit application. The City Council <br />ultimately denied RDNT's application for the conditional use permit. One <br />of the reasons for the denial was that the City Council found that the <br />proposed use would violate the City's conditional use permit ordinance, <br />which required that proposed uses "not be injurious to the surrounding <br />neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, safety, and welfare." <br />The City Council found that the increase in square footage and traffic would <br />be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood. <br />RDNT appealed. The district court reversed the denial of RDNT's <br />application. It held that the record was insufficient to support a finding that <br />the proposed use would injure the neighborhood or harm the community. <br />The City appealed. The court of appeals reversed the district court and <br />held that the City appropriately exercised its discretion. <br />10 © 2015 Thomson Reuters <br />