Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br /> Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 19 <br /> i <br /> Time for Determination—Board of <br /> Commissioners votes against <br /> resolution to approve conditional <br /> use permit <br /> Applicant argues that failure of members cif <br /> Board to give reasons for vote at time of vote <br /> resulted in failure to timely deny permit and thus <br /> automatic approval of permit <br /> Citation:Perschbacher a Freeborn County Bd. of Com'rs, 883 N.W.2d 637 <br /> (Minn. Ct.App. 2016) <br /> `! MINNESOTA (08/08/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br /> county board of commissioners failed to deny a conditional use permit in a <br /> timely manner such that the permit was automatically approved under state <br /> ] statutory law. <br /> i The Background/Facts: John D. Perschbacher ("Perschbacher") was a <br /> I livestock producer. On December 11,2014,Perschbacher applied to Freeborn <br /> County (the"County" for a conditional use permit("CUP") to construct on <br /> land in an agricultural district in the County a barn capable of housing 2,490 <br /> I swine. <br /> The County's zoning ordinance governing agricultural districts required <br /> that"any agricultural building or structure of the housing of livestock when <br /> located outside of a farmyard"is a conditional use requiring a CUP approved <br /> by the County Board of Commissioners(the"Board").The zoning ordinance <br /> required analysis of CUP applications based on five factors related to the ef- <br /> fect of the proposed use on the surrounding area—including property values, <br /> development of vacant properties,adequacy of utilities and roads,adequacy of <br /> parking and loading space to serve the proposed use,and measures to prevent <br /> offensive odor,fumes,dust,noise'and vibration. <br /> After public meetings on the proposal,the Board ultimately voted against a <br /> resolution to approve the CUP request.At the time of the vote, those voting <br /> against the resolution did not state their reasons. However, in a letter dated <br /> February 17,2015,the Board voted to approve a"statement of procedures and <br /> reasons for denial of[the CUP]."The statement summarized comments that <br /> had been made in support of and against Perschbacher's CUP request. It also <br /> listed the five factors required by the County zoning ordinance to be considered <br /> when acting on a CUP request. The statement concluded that those voting , <br /> against the resolution to approve the CUP based their vote on the location of <br /> the proposed conditional use and their analysis of the five CUP factors. <br /> I <br /> Perschbacher appealed the denial of his CUP. He argued that the County <br /> had failed to approve or deny his CUP in a timely manner, and that his CUP <br /> was therefore approved automatically under state statutory law.Perschbacher <br /> pointed to Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(b). That statute provides that "an <br /> ©2016 Thomson Reuters 9 <br /> r° <br /> i <br />