CC_Minutes_2004_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 9 of 10 including zoning and subdivision ordinances. See id. SS .22, subd. 6; .24, subd. I. The role of the comprehensive plan is different from that of official controls. The comprehensive plan is "the guide for the future development of the county." [d. S .22, subd. 9. It contains "the policies, statements, goals, and interrelated plans for private and public land and water use, transportation, and community facilities." [d. It also contains recommendations for its execution. [d. Official controls, by contrast, "are the means of translating into ordinances all or any part of the general objectives of the comprehensive plan." [d. S .22, subd. 6. The comprehensive guide plan adopted by the Chisago County Board of Commissioners similarly has an advisory role that is different from that of the official controls embodied in the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The preamble to the comprehensive guide plan defines the plan as a "policy guide" intended to be "general in nature" and to "serve as a growth management tool for the County." Chisago County, Minn., Comprehensive Guide Plan, at ii (1995). The preamble defines zoning and subdivision ordinances as the tools for implementing the goals and policies of the comprehensive guide plan. [d. (providing that "[ilmplementation of the plan will be accomplished through. . . the County's zoning and subdivision ordinances"). The county's subdivision ordinance, in turn, provides that the ordinances are "the means by which the county controls the land use outlined in the Comprehensive Guide Plan." Chisago County, Minn., Subdivision Ordinance, at i. **7 In denying preliminary-plat approval based on the conclusion that the proposed plat was inconsistent with the comprehensive guide plan, the board of commissioners failed to recognize the uniquely advisory role of the comprehensive guide plan and elevated it to the stature of the zoning and subdivision ordinances, both of which have the force of law. This constituted error for the following reasons. *575 First, giving the comprehensive guide plan regulatory effect ignores the statute, the subdivision ordinance, and the comprehensive guide plan itself, all of which define the plan as a policy guide to be implemented by official controls. A majority of jurisdictions treat comprehensive plans as advisory, notwithstanding ordinance provisions, such as the one before us, requiring that the subdivision of land be "consistent with" or "in accordance with" a comprehensive plan. Cf Stuart Meck, The f&;!islative Requirement that ZoninfJ and Land Use Controls be Consistent with an Indeoendentlv Adopted Coml2rehensive Plan: A Model Statute. 3 Wash. U. J.1. & Pol'v 295.297-306 (2000) (noting that despite the widespread adoption of the "consistently with" or "in accordance with" language in enabling acts, amajority of states treat comprehensive plans as advisory). Llill Second, elevating the comprehensive guide plan to the level of zoning and subdivision ordinances ignores the stated purpose of the comprehensive guide plan, which is merely to guide the board in setting zoning standards. It is those zoning standards, implicit in the zoning and subdivision ordinances, that govern the board's decision making when reviewing a specific proposal. The zoning provisions at issue here permit the use of agricultural land for single-family dwellings at a maximum density of one dwelling per five-acre lot. See Chisago County, Minn., Zoning Ordinance S 5.06(B) (I 0). The standards established in the zoning ordinance are conclusive until the board rezones the district or amends the zoning ordinance through proper legislative channels. See Chanhassen Estates. 342 N.W.2d at 340. Third, even if the comprehensive guide plan had the force of law, its provisions are "intended to be general in nature" and are thus legally insufficient as a basis for denying an application for preliminary-plat approval. See Comprehensive Guide Plan, at ii; C.R. Invs" Inc., 304 N.W.2d at 327- ~~ (holding that provision in comprehensive plan requiring developer to demonstrate that proposed . .ldelivery.htm]?dataid~A00558000000419 I 0003939398B92C3E6DED02C543&dest~alp&f 3/25/2003