CC_Minutes_2004_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

rage ~ or IV land-use decisions. See Countv Builders. Inc. v. Lower Providence Township. 5 Pa.Cmwlth. 1. 287 A.2d 849. 852 (! 972) (stating that subdivision ruling that effectively amends zoning ordinance improperly allows local government to "hold in reserve unpublished requirements capable of general application for occasional use"). Thus, we conclude that the board of commissioners' denial of approval lacked a rational basis. Because, as a matter of law, local officials must approve a preliminary plat that proposes a permitted use and complies with the regulatory standards specified for that use, the board of commissioners exceeded its authority in denying PTL's application for preliminary-plat approval on the basis that the proposed development was inconsistent with existing land uses and not well planned. The decision to deny preliminary-plat approval was based on legally insufficient reasons. To hold otherwise would undermine the legal doctrine that a subdivision plan that complies with applicable regulations must be approved as a matter of right. II. 00 PTL also argues that the board of commissioners lacked legal authority to reject irs application for preliminary-plat approval of a permissible land use on the basis that the preliminary plat failed to implement the goals and policies of the county's comprehensive guide plan. We agree. Compatibility with the public's health, safety, and general welfare of the local government's comprehensive land-use plan is an appropriare consideration in approving an application for a conditional use. See Minn.Stat. & 394.22 , subd. 7 (2002) (defining conditional use as use that may be allowed on finding that it conforms to county's comprehensive plan); Hubbard Broad.. Inc. v. Citv of Arron. 323 N. W.2d 757. 763 (Minn. I 982) (holding that city council's determination that proposed use was inconsistent with comprehensive plan justified denial of special-use permit); SuperAmerica Group. 539 N.W.2d at 267 (holding that incompatibility between proposed use and "definite and objective standards" in city's comprehensive plan *574 justified denial of conditional-use permit), review denied (Minn. Jan. 5, 1996). But cf Amoco Oil Co. v. Citv of Minneapolis. 395 N.W.2d 115. 118 (Minn.App. I 986) (holding that reliance on comprehensive plan as basis for denying conditional- use permit was improper where zoning ordinance did not list compliance with comprehensive plan as basis for denial). **6 [2] In contrast, for a permissible use, the law recognizes that when a city designates a specific use as permissible in a particular zone or district, the city has exercised its discretion and determined that the permitted use is consistent with the public health, safety, and general welfare and consonant with the goals of its comprehensive plan. Chanhassen Estates. 342 N.W.2d at 340. But the board of commissioners denied PTL's application for approval of a preliminary plat that proposed a permitted use because the proposed use, although permitted, failed to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive guide plan. In so doing, the board relied on sections 1.02(J) and 1.05 of the Chisago County Subdivision Ordinance. Section 1.02(1) lists the implementation of the comprehensive guide plan as a stated purpose. Chisago County, Minn., Subdivision Ordinance !l 1.02(1). Section 1.05 requires that the subdivision of land "not be inconsistent with" the comprehensive guide plan. [d. !l 1.05. Thus, whether the board exceeded its authority depends on whether sections 1.02(1) and 1.05 give the comprehensive guide plan regulatory effect. Under Minnesota law, each county "has the power and authority to prepare and adopt" a comprehensive plan. Mirill.Srat. & 394.23 (2002) . The plan is to be implemented by official controls, .. .ideliverv.html?dataid=A00558000000419 I 0003939398B92C3E6DED02C543&dest=atp&f 3/25/2003