Laserfiche WebLink
April 25, 2004 --Page 3 <br /> <br /> Conditional Use Per'nit -- Developer wants to build shoreline <br /> development <br /> Board makes decisiot~ wirhom putting its reasons in the record <br /> Cicatrix)n: Dead/,ake A fsi)clarion [rzc. v. Otter ~il Count, Cou~ of Appeals of <br /> Mmne.~'ora, NY. A03-7 70 ~ 2004) <br /> <br />M~./ESOTA (02/09?)~ ~ R. Mu~ay P~tnersMp LLP owned appro~ately <br />29~000 feet of shorelJ ~e 3long Blue Heron Bay. The p~ners~p w~ted to <br />develop the lm~d into '~ cluster development consisting of a ~ed residenfi~ <br />and ~-~:creational corn n~miry with 151 seasonal and pe~anent u~ts. ~e <br />phmnt:d devd[~pment tI:,r~ mcluded a general store, a restaurant, ~o sw~- <br />ming ]~,)ol.s, a marina, md co,non mooring facilities. <br /> Thc p~ner:¢~ip sub r:nJtred a conditionaI use pe~t apphcation to ~e counW. <br />Ttle ct)miry p fantfing c t)n~r~Sssion approved the apphcarion wi~ 10 ad~fion~ <br />recommeudatitm:s. A t/eck later, the bo~d of co~ssioners approved ~e <br /> <br /> D~ad Lake ,~3soci.~ r[:)lt Inc., a group of ~ea residents opposed to ~e de- <br />velopt~enL sued d~.e b~trd The com~ ruled fn the bond's rayon <br /> The associ, a don apl ealed, claiming the board's decision was ~bi~ ~d <br />c:.tpdcious becau:;c rhe:e was no evidence in the record COnCerning why ~e <br /> <br />DECISION: Reverse~. <br /> Th.~e board's failure o r~cord any legally sufficient basis for frs dete~ina- <br />ti. on clt:arly made the &:ci3i. on arbitrary. <br /> When the board de[:J, de,t to approve the conditional use pe~t, it made no <br />factual findings r%ardi ~g the basis for its decision. The o~y evidence N ~e <br />recr:~rd concerning the l,oa~d's decision was a copy of the Ap~ 22 mee~g <br />migrate:4 and thc: letter i. fforming the pa~nersNp of pe~t approve. Nei~er <br />sratt:d the reasons for the board's decision. <br /> .~ltht)ugh the mmut ts tnenrfoned the planning co~ssiou's reco~en- <br />dati,)n, the board did n~,t adopt the planning co~ssiou's ffmdNgs, ~d <br />phmniog cmmmssiou did not m~e findings reg~ding its decision m recom- <br />mend permit approval. <br /> The meeting was pm dally recorded, but the recording began ~er ~e ~r- <br />mJ t had already be en apl,roved. Consequently, the recording made no mention <br />o1: the bt)ard's dt:cision. <br /> I Jltimately, the::e was nor enough of a record to suppo~ the bond's dec,ion. <br /> <br />.re~' ~d,~'~:.' Pichc~ :,. C.,¢unz , '-7"'.¢[c'EeorL 634 N. ~2d 739 (200t). <br />.~'e~: cdst)' 5't, mri,s'e L,,tke A,: ~'o,,irzrio~'~ v. Chi,tago Coun~ Board of Commissioners, <br /> <br />;c.:; 20¢}4 C(iil}lan Pur)iisi~inr; ,"h-ou~, 'fly rr:product!on rs prohibited. For more information please call (6i7) 542-0048. <br /> <br />109 <br /> <br /> <br />