My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0524
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0524
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:30:09 AM
Creation date
2/9/2006 12:53:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/24/2004
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Page / ot lU <br /> <br />See Chanhassen Estates. 342 N.W.2d at 340; Chase. 401 N.W.2d at 413 . <br /> <br />The board of commissioners conceded that the proposed lots "appeared to be perfectly legal, <br />dimensionally speaking." But it denied preliminary-plat approval nonetheless, citing concerns about <br />the proposed development's negative land-use impacts. To support its denial, the board of <br />commissioners relied on sections 1.02(C) and (1) of the Chisago County Subdivision Ordinance. <br />Section 1.02(C) provides that one of the purposes of the subdivision ordinance is to "[ e ]ncourage <br />well-planned, efficient, and attractive subdivisions." Chis ago County, Minn., Subdivision Ordinance <br />~ 1.02(C) (1999). Section 1.02(1) lists the protection and promotion of compatible land uses as one of <br />the ordinance's stated purposes. !d. ~ 1.02(1). <br /> <br />The board exceeded its authority in denying PTL's preliminary-plat approval for two reasons. First, <br />sections 1.02(C) and (I) are merely general statements of purpose; they do not set forth clear and <br />objective standards a developer must meet to obtain subdivision approval. For that reason, they do <br />not provide a legally sufficient basis to reject a subdivision plan. Odell, 348 N. W.2d at 797 <br />(concluding that provision stating that purpose of subdivision ordinance was "to promote an attractive <br />and stable community" was vague and could not serve as independent basis for disapproving <br />preliminary plat). <br /> <br />L2l Regulatory standards must be sufficiently precise to ensure the application of objective standards <br />to all similarly situated property, to adequately inform landowners of the requirements they must <br />satisfy to gain subdivision approval, and to allow a reviewing court to evaluate noncompliance. See <br />Local Subdivision ReJ!ulation. supra, 24 Ga. L.Rev. at 536; see also Kaufinan v. PlanninJ! and Zoning <br />Zonin,? Comm'n of the Citv of Fairmont, 171 W.Va. 174.298 S.E.2d 148. 154-55 (1982) (reversing <br />denial of preliminary-plat approval on ground that statute requiring local government to determine <br />whether distribution of traffic and population promoted "harmonious development" lacked specificity <br />necessary to ensure fair administration and put subdividers on notice of requirements they must <br />satisfy to obtain subdivision approval); Goodman v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Township of South <br />Whitehall. 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 35. 41] A.2d 838. 841 (1980) (holding that subdivision plan could not be <br />rejected on basis of subdivision ordinance statement of purpose declaring that subdivision must be <br />coordinated with existing developments so that "area as a whole may be developed harmoniously"). <br />*573 Like the regulation in Odell, sections 1.02(C) and (1) lack the specificity necessary to serve as <br />the basis for denying preliminary-plat approval. The board of commissioners' denial of approval, <br />therefore, was based on unreasonably vague standards. <br /> <br />**5 [l] Second, when local officials enact ordinances designating a specific use as permitted in a <br />particular district, they determine by implication that the permitted use is consistent with existing <br />land uses. See Chanhassen Estates, 342 N.W.2d at 340. Thus, when the board of commissioners <br />enacted the county's zoning ordinance and designated single- family dwellings as a use permitted in <br />agricultural districts, the board of commissioners implicitly determined that single-family dwellings <br />are consistent with existing land uses, provided they comply with the specific requirements <br />prescribed for that use. That determination is conclusive until the board of commissioners rezones the <br />land in question or amends the zoning ordinance. ld. <br /> <br />To allow the board to deny approval of a preliminary plat that proposes a permitted use and complies <br />with the regulations specified for that use would, in effect, allow the board to arbitrarily amend the <br />zoning ordinance simply by denying applications for subdivision approval. Such a practice would <br />deprive landowners of adequate guidance in the preparation of preliminary plats and would allow <br />capricious actions based on subjective criteria rather than express zoning provisions enacted to guide <br /> <br />.. /delivery.htmjOdataid~A005580000004 I 9 I 0003 939398B92C3E6DED02C543&dest~atp&f 3/25/2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.