Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

October 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 19 Zoning Bulletin ral retail tourism uses—such as that proposed by August—were required by the County zoning ordinance to remain "small-scale and low -impact," which required the use to "not negatively impact the neighborhood by intrusion of noise . . . ." (§ 4.15, subd. D.) August appealed the, denial of his CUP application. August argued that the County Planning Commission "failed to provide a proper and sufficient legal basis for the denial of his CUP." He also argued that the County Board erred in considering the effects of noise from his use of the property for mounted shooting competitions because the "noise created by the mounted shooting [did] not rise above the sound pressure levels promul- gated by the [Minnesota Pollution Control Agency]." DECISION: Determination of county board of commissioner's affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota rejected August's arguments and upheld the County Board's denial of August's CUP application. In upholding the denial of the CUP application, the court explained that county zoning authorities have wide latitude in making decisions on CUPs but cannot base their decisions on "unreasonably vague or unreasonably subjective" standards. In other words, the denial of a CUP cannot be arbitrary—such as where the applicant establishes that all of the standards specified by the zoning ordinance as conditions of granting the permit are satisfied. Here, the court upheld the County Board's decision finding it (1) was based on legally sufficient reasons; and (2) based on reasons that had a factual basis in the record. The court found that the County Board denied the CUP application based on the conflict of August's proposed use with the rural retail tourism use standards, specifically the small-scale/low-impact requirement of the zoning ordinance and the impact the use would have on the neighborhood "by intrusion of noise, glare, odor, or other adverse effects." Thus, the court concluded that, in denying the CUP, the County Board "relied on the criteria enumerated in the [C]ounty zoning ordinances and thereby provided legally sufficient reasons for denying the CUP." The court also found that the County Board's denial had a factual basis. The court disagreed with August's contention that the Board could not consider the effects of noise since the noise from his use did not meet or exceed the sound pressure levels promulgated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA"). The court found that the County zoning ordinance did not conflict with the MPCA. The County zoning ordinance provided that noise from any use must be in compliance with MPCA rules. Minnesota statutory law prohibited local governments from setting more stringent sound pressure levels. The County zoning ordinance did not conflict with the statutory law—as it did not establish more stringent noise standards; nor did it establish noise standards different from those promulgated under the MPCA. Rather, the pertinent sections of the County 4 © 2015 Thomson Reuters