Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2015 Volume 9 Issue 19 Citation: August v. Chisago County Bd. of Com'rs, 2015 WL 4877658 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015) 1VIINNESOTA (08/17/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether, in deciding to deny a landowner a conditional use peiiuit, a county board could consider the effects of noise from a landowner's desired use of the property even if the noise level did not surpass state statutory noise standards. The Background/Facts: Jeffery August ("August") owned a 20 -acre tract of land (the "Property") located in Sunrise Township (the "Town- ship") in Chisago County (the "County"). The Property was zoned for ag- ricultural use and was generally surrounded by property developed in "a rural, residential manner, with farm fields or residential lawns." In 2013, August began hosting mounted shooting competitions and clin- ics on his Property. Mounted shooting competitions consist of 10 to 15 contestants who ride on horseback while attempting to shoot balloons on mounted posts in the center of the arena. Contestants shoot at the balloons with .45 caliber blanks. August typically held the mounted shooting competitions on Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to dusk and on Sundays from noon until 6:00 p.m. In con- nection with the competitions, contestants and spectators camped overnight in either tents or RVs in an adjacent pasture on the property. In addition to the competitions, August hosted "major shoots," which typically spanned the course of a three-day weekend. August also offered one -day clinics where club members could train and learn safety skills. The 2014 schedule listed two clinics, five shoots, and five major shoots. After receiving complaints about the property, in 2014, the County Depaiinient of Environmental Services and Zoning (the "Zoning Depart- ment") determined that August's use of the Property did not conform to its zoned use. August was advised to apply for a conditional -use permit ("CUP"). August applied for a CUP and agreed to have his CUP applica- tion processed as "rural retail tourism/commercial outdoor recreation use." Ultimately, the County Planning Commission recommended denial of August's CUP application because it would violate "Section 4.15, part D, part five [of the rural tourism criteria,] [in that it would] `create[ ] negative impact on the neighborhood by intrusive noise.' " Incorporating the County Planning Conunission's findings, the County Board of Commissioner's (the "County Board") denied the CUP "based upon its conflict with the required performance characteristics cited in Section 4.15 of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance governing rural retail tourism uses." Essentially, the County Board concluded that intrusive noise from August's proposed use would negatively impact the neighborhood. Under the County zoning ordinance, "[e]xisting nearby properties shall not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness." (§ 8.04, subd. C.) In addition to the CUP requirements, ru- © 2015 Thomson Reuters 3