Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/2006

Home

(: Z.B. September 25, 2006 .-:... Page 5 ( \.. incident that occurred while he was attempting to obtain a building pennit from a local zoning board. Although Mastej claimed that any local appeal would have been futile, a claim of futility required more than a bare assertion that a decision by a local inspector causedan unexpected delay in development plans. And, while delay from a denial (even an improper denial) of a permit application could cause a developer significant hardship, it did not give rise to a constitutional claim without a final agency decision. 'The final decision requirement helped the court develop a factual record on the nature of the dispute, prevented ambiguity as to how the land use board would apply the regulations to the property at issue, enabled aggrieved parties to obtain relief without the federal court ruling on constitutional grounds, and respected the fact that land use disputes should be left in the hands of local officials whenever appropriate. State law gave the city planner and the local zoning board the authority to grant permits. Mastej did not alle~e that the board harbored an ingrained bias against his application. Instead, Mastej said that his project was entirely de- pendent on limited-time bank financing. When Bolduc denied his application, Mastej lost the fmancing. However, the loss of funds . for the development project was not enoughfor the court to make a decision on Mastej's claims until or unless he went through the entire local administrative process. Conditional Use- Property owner wants to convert home into a bed and breakfast . County denies application due to opposition from neighbors Citation: Bartheld v. County of Koochiching, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. A05-2124 (2006) MINNESOTA (07/11/06) - Bartheld owned a residence. on Rainy Lake in Koochiching County. Barthe1d sought to convert the residence into a: bed and breakfast, which was to include five rental units. The property was located in a residential-recreation zoning district, which pennitted one- and two-family dwell- ings but not commercial uses. Barthetd applied for a conditional use pennit, and the county planning and zoning commission held a hearing on the application. At the hearing, several neighbors expressed concerns about parking, traffic, noise, and the probability of declining property values. . Prior to a second hearing, eight neighbors signed a petition opposing Bartheld's application. Bartheld then submitted a letter to the commission amep.d- ingthe application to address all the neighbors' concerns. The commission held the second hearing and ultimately concluded that Bartheld's application satisfied all of the requirements. The commission recommended that the county approve the application. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542.0048. 89