Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2003

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I z.g. April 10, 2003_-- Page 3 aga/nst the proposal." The planning commission held the hearing, and one of the owners of a nearby golf course spoke against the project and pointed to potential problems. The Schuellers attended the hearing but did not speak. The commission granted the application, and the department confkrmed the decision, ordering that the permit be issued. The Johnsons commenced the project, and the facility became operational. The Schuellers sued, contending they did not receive proper notice. They also claimed the hearing conducted was defective and the permit had no ratio- nal basis. DECISION: Affirmed. The permit was upheld. The law provided that written notice of hearings on conditional use petits had to be sent to owners of record within one-quarter mile of the affected prop: erty. However, the same law did not provide a consequence for failure to com- ply wkh the notice requirement. Here, the Schuellers did not receive written notice, apparently due to an error. They claimed this error entitled them to a trial or "an opportunity to aug- ment the record in district court." However, the Schuellers had actual notiCe of the hearing as evidenced by their presence. They also had an opportunity to object to the project but chose not to do so. They did not prove any prejudice resulting from the defective notice of .the hearing. The court also disagreed that there was no rational basis for granting the permit. Those present at the hearing did not prove that the facility Would create "an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public fac~ties." Citation: Stone Creek Golf Course [nc. v. Benton County Planning Commission, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C0-02-1142 (2003). see also: City of Bemidji v. Beighley, 410 N.W.2d 338 (1987). Zoning ordinance -- Garage construction exceeds maximnm footprint CouM ordinance be applied retroactively ? CONNECTICUT (02/25/03) -- The Poitiers owned a homebuilt in 1954 as part of a 38-iot subdivision approved by the town planning commission. In 1999, the Poiriers fried an application for a zoning permit to al/ow construction of a garage and breezeway on their lot. The commission required a zoning permit prior to the application for a building permit: The zoning enforcement officer denied the application because the existing buildings along with the new footprint for the garage would exceed the maxi- mum coverage allotments as. set forth in the town zoning ordinance. 313