CC_Minutes_2004_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page / ot lU See Chanhassen Estates. 342 N.W.2d at 340; Chase. 401 N.W.2d at 413 . The board of commissioners conceded that the proposed lots "appeared to be perfectly legal, dimensionally speaking." But it denied preliminary-plat approval nonetheless, citing concerns about the proposed development's negative land-use impacts. To support its denial, the board of commissioners relied on sections 1.02(C) and (1) of the Chisago County Subdivision Ordinance. Section 1.02(C) provides that one of the purposes of the subdivision ordinance is to "[ e ]ncourage well-planned, efficient, and attractive subdivisions." Chis ago County, Minn., Subdivision Ordinance ~ 1.02(C) (1999). Section 1.02(1) lists the protection and promotion of compatible land uses as one of the ordinance's stated purposes. !d. ~ 1.02(1). The board exceeded its authority in denying PTL's preliminary-plat approval for two reasons. First, sections 1.02(C) and (I) are merely general statements of purpose; they do not set forth clear and objective standards a developer must meet to obtain subdivision approval. For that reason, they do not provide a legally sufficient basis to reject a subdivision plan. Odell, 348 N. W.2d at 797 (concluding that provision stating that purpose of subdivision ordinance was "to promote an attractive and stable community" was vague and could not serve as independent basis for disapproving preliminary plat). L2l Regulatory standards must be sufficiently precise to ensure the application of objective standards to all similarly situated property, to adequately inform landowners of the requirements they must satisfy to gain subdivision approval, and to allow a reviewing court to evaluate noncompliance. See Local Subdivision ReJ!ulation. supra, 24 Ga. L.Rev. at 536; see also Kaufinan v. PlanninJ! and Zoning Zonin,? Comm'n of the Citv of Fairmont, 171 W.Va. 174.298 S.E.2d 148. 154-55 (1982) (reversing denial of preliminary-plat approval on ground that statute requiring local government to determine whether distribution of traffic and population promoted "harmonious development" lacked specificity necessary to ensure fair administration and put subdividers on notice of requirements they must satisfy to obtain subdivision approval); Goodman v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Township of South Whitehall. 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 35. 41] A.2d 838. 841 (1980) (holding that subdivision plan could not be rejected on basis of subdivision ordinance statement of purpose declaring that subdivision must be coordinated with existing developments so that "area as a whole may be developed harmoniously"). *573 Like the regulation in Odell, sections 1.02(C) and (1) lack the specificity necessary to serve as the basis for denying preliminary-plat approval. The board of commissioners' denial of approval, therefore, was based on unreasonably vague standards. **5 [l] Second, when local officials enact ordinances designating a specific use as permitted in a particular district, they determine by implication that the permitted use is consistent with existing land uses. See Chanhassen Estates, 342 N.W.2d at 340. Thus, when the board of commissioners enacted the county's zoning ordinance and designated single- family dwellings as a use permitted in agricultural districts, the board of commissioners implicitly determined that single-family dwellings are consistent with existing land uses, provided they comply with the specific requirements prescribed for that use. That determination is conclusive until the board of commissioners rezones the land in question or amends the zoning ordinance. ld. To allow the board to deny approval of a preliminary plat that proposes a permitted use and complies with the regulations specified for that use would, in effect, allow the board to arbitrarily amend the zoning ordinance simply by denying applications for subdivision approval. Such a practice would deprive landowners of adequate guidance in the preparation of preliminary plats and would allow capricious actions based on subjective criteria rather than express zoning provisions enacted to guide .. /delivery.htmjOdataid~A005580000004 I 9 I 0003 939398B92C3E6DED02C543&dest~atp&f 3/25/2003