Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

'142 Page 8 -- February 25, 2003 g.g. piece of property did. Consequently, the parcels were distinct and noncontiguous. Citation: Fort Morgan Civic Associan'on, Inc. v. Baldwin County Commission, Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, No. 2010659 (2003). see also: City ofDothan v. Dale County Commissioners, 324 So.2d242 (1975). see also: Spanish Fort v. City of Daphne, 774 So.2d 567 (2000). Conditional Use -- County denies development permit near lake Developers claim lake too large to be. so protected MINNESOTA (01/07/03) -- Gurtek applied for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a recreational camping park consisting of 99 sites on the shore of Sunrise Lake. The county's shoreland-manggement ordinance assigned various levels of environmental Protection to lakes within the county. "Natural Environment" lakes were granted the most protection because they generally had "limited capacities for assimilating the impacts of development and recreational use." Sunrise Lake had been classified as a natural' environment lake since 1986. When the permit was denied, Gurtek sued. The court ruled in favor of the decision. ~ Gurtek appealed, claiming Sunrise Lake was not properly classified as a natural environmental lake because under'the department of natural resources' classification criteria, a natural environmental lake usually had fewer than 60 acres of water per mile and fewer than 150 acres total area. Sunrise Lake was larger -- 158.8 acres of water per mile and more than 810 total acres. DECISION: Affirmed. The perm/t could be denied based on Sunrise Lake's classification. In challenging the lake's classification, Gurtek was challenging a legisla- tive judgment. A zoning classification had to be upheld if it was supported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. If Sunhse Lake was properly classJ_fied as a natural environmental lake, the proposed use was incompatible with it. The county found the proposal would: increase boat traffic and ha. ye a harmful effect on water quality. Also, pedes- trian and vehicle traffic would encourage erosion and increase new sediment in a very shallow lake. Finally, the county soil and water conservation district'did not have enough resources to address existing erosion and po~udon problems. Sunrise Lake's stares and'the threat of environmental harm-were sufficient reasons to deny the conditional use permit. The denial was not arbitrary,' capri- cious, or unreasonable. Citation: in re Conditional Use Permit Application of Richard Gurtek, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No: C9-02-278 (2003). see also: Barton Contracting Co. v. City of Alton, 268 iV. W. 2d 7]2 (1978). see also: SuperAmerica Group Inc. v. City of Little Canada, 539 N.W. 2d 264 (1995). I I I I I I I I I I I I i i ! I I ! I