Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2007

Home

February 1, 20071 Volume 1 i No, 3 to contain "sufficif"J'lt adjudicative facts" so that a court could conduct a "mean- mgful" review of the proceedings, This Was a procedural due process safeguard and alloWed the court to detetmine if a board Md acted arbitrarily or illegally, Here, the~ourt found that the board made no findings of fact, 01; if it did, the record did Dot reflect those findings. The board listed only the r;ondusory state- ment that the application met all the requirements of a conditional use permit without offering any supporting evidence. The court found that it had "no way" of knowing what evidence the board reli~ upon and whether the board had considered if the sportsman's club would have any adverse affects on the area. Because the board had not provided a record that enabled a meaningful court review, the ~e was returned to the board for further proceedings. ' See also: Callerv. Ison, 508 S. W:2d 776 (1974). Zoning Decision -' Board denies plat application despite recommendation from planning commission Property owner argues board required to approve subdivision plan Citation: S~tton v." Town Bd. of Town of Princeton. 2007 WL 48872 (Minn. Ct. App,2007), :MINl.'ffiSOTA (01/09/07) - Sutton owned land in Princeton Township. ( He submitted a preliminary pl~tThapplicati.on to lithe planning commission to ...""" subdivide the land into 10 lots. e initial app .cation was met with some reservations, so Surron amended the application, reducing the number of lots to seven and including a proposed. private access road. The pl::!nnine: commission held a meeting to cliscuss the application. Vari- ous experts testified that, despite its conformance with the zoning ordinanc- es, they had concerns about the subdivision plan. An engineer stated that it was not well planned and did not use the land efficiently, ind the zoning ad. ministrator re~om.mended approval only if the plat complied with any condi- tions set forth by the engineer. Ultima.tely, the commission recommended that the town board approve . the application, but the board denied it. In its decision, the board stated sev- eral reasons for denial, including the engineer's opinion on the" inefficient land use. Also, the board found that an outlot planned as part of the subdi- vision did not conform to the zoning ordinance. Surron appealed the board's decision to court, arguing that his proposal confonned to the ordinance and, therefore, th,e board had" to approve it. The court found in Sutton's favOl; finding that the engineer's admission at the hearing that the application met the ordinance requirements and the planning commission's recommendation for approval proved that plat conformed to the ordi.n.ance. The court ordered the board to approve Sutton's application. The township appealed, arguing that its decision to deny the application was supported by the record and that the lower court had granted relief to Sutton improperly. Decision: Reversed and returned to lower court fo.r further proceedings. 4 94