Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 10 of 10 <br /> <br />use "is consistent with the [ comprehensive] plan's general intent and purpose" was unreasonably <br />vague, subjective, and did not furnish ground for denial of special-use permit). The comprehensive <br />guide plan in this case provides that the county's agricultural goals are to <br />[p]rotect long term agriculture as a vital element in the County economy [,][p]revent the unnecessary <br />conversion of prime farmland to non-farm uses [,][and][p]revent incompatible land uses in the <br />agricultural areas. <br />**8 Chisago County Comprehensive Guide Plan at 28. Like the provisions of the comprehensive plan <br />in C.R. Invs. Inc.. the provisions of the Chisago County Comprehensive Guide Plan are unreasonably <br />vague and subjective for the purposes of furnishing a basis for denying approval ofPTL's preliminary <br />plat. <br /> <br />Moreover, because the county's zoning and subdivision ordinances Implement the comprehensive <br />guide plan, a preliminary plat that conforms with the requirements of zoning and subdivision <br />ordinances conforms, by definition, with the comprehensive guide plan. Chanhassen Estates. 342 <br />N.W.2d at 340. PTL's preliminary plat conforms with the requirements of the zoning and subdivision <br />ordinances. Accordingly, the decision to deny PTL's preliminary plat on the basis that it fails to <br />implement the comprehensive guide plan is premised on a legally insufficient reason. <br /> <br />We are mindful of the demands of land-use management. It is certainly proper for the board of <br />commissioners to consider aesthetics, historical uses of the land, and the public cost of providing <br />services for a given land use. But these considerations *576 must be reflected with sufficient <br />specificity in the land-use ordinances. This decision does not preclude future revision of the zoning <br />and subdivision ordinances to address these considerations. <br /> <br />DECISION <br /> <br />The board of commissioners exceeded its authority in denying PTL's application for preliminary-plat <br />approval on the basis that the proposed development was incompatible with existing land uses, was <br />not well planned, and failed to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive guide plan. <br />The board's withdrawal, at oral argument, of the additional bases for denial of preliminary-plat <br />approval makes it unnecessary for us to consider PTL's challenge to the board's reliance on those <br />bases. We reverse the board's denial of preliminary-plat approval and remand to the board of <br />commissioners for proceedings not inconsistent ,with this opinion. <br /> <br />Reversed and remanded. <br /> <br />656 N.W.2d 567, 2003 WL 347184 (Minn.App.) <br /> <br />END OF DOCUMENT <br /> <br />.../ delivery.html ?dataid=A005 5 8000000419100039393 98B92C3 E6DED02C54 3 &dest=atp&f 3/25/2003 <br />