Board of Sup'rs of Benton Tp. v. Carver County Bd. of Com'rs
| Decision Date | 17 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 44694,44694 |
| Citation | 302 Minn. 493,225 N.W.2d 815 |
| Parties | BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF BENTON TOWNSHIP, et al., Appellants, v. CARVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Respondent, Carver Creek Country Club, Inc., Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a county board issues no findings of fact or reasons in support of a decision to grant a conditional-use permit, a trial court must affirm that decision if the evidence in the record supports a finding that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare.
2. Under the ordinance then in effect, the county board was not required to adopt the recommendation of the county planning commission.
3. The county board did not unlawfully delegate its authority by appointing a subcommittee to investigate the merits of the proposed use.
4. The evidence supports a finding that the approval of defendant's application was not contrary to the existing comprehensive land use plan.
Nicklaus & Leatham and Robert A. Nicklaus and Dwight J. Leatham, Chaska, for appellants.
W. R. Glaeser, County Atty., Scott Ballou, Asst. County Atty., Chaska, for Carver Co. Bd. of Comm.
Wurst, Bundlie, Carroll & Crouch, and Gerald T. Carroll, Jr., Minneapolis, for Carver Creek Country Club, Inc.
Heard before ROGOSHESKE, TODD, and YETKA, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Carver County, entered July 25, 1973, denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, and from the judgment entered. We affirm.
On June 1, 1971, defendant Carver Creek Country Club, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as Carver Creek) filed an application with the Carver County Office of Planning and Zoning requesting a conditional-use permit for the purpose of constructing a golf course on a 180-acre tract of real estate 1 located in Benton Township, Carver County. This application was referred to the Carver County Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the planning commission) for consideration at its July 14, 1971, meeting. The Carver County Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 3 was in effect at the time. Section 4(88) defined conditional uses as follows:
'Those occupations, vocations, skills, arts businesses, professions, or uses specifically designated in each Zoning Use District, which for their respective conduct, exercise or performance in such designated use districts may require reasonable but special, peculiar, unusual or extraordinary limitations, facilities, plans, structures, thoroughfares, conditions, modification, or regulations in such use district for the promotion or preservation of the general public welfare, health, convenience, or safety therein and in the County, and therefore, may be permitted in such use district only by a Conditional Use Permit.'
Section 6, subsection 7, details the procedure to be used in obtaining a conditional-use permit:
'7.1--APPLICATION: Whenever this Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit, an application therefor in writing may be filed with the Zoning Administrator together with such filing fee as may be established by the County Board and shall be accompanied with a site plan and such information and showing as may be necessary or desirable, including but not limited to the following:
'a. Site plan drawn at scale showing dimensions.
'h. Sanitary sewer and water plan with estimated use per day.
Section 8 provides for the uses in agricultural districts:
'(1)--PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES: Within any 'A' District no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses:
'1.3--Agriculture subject to two (2) animal units per acre.
'(2)--CONDITIONAL USES: Within any 'A' District no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by Conditional Use Permit:
'2.4--Recreational uses or facilities designed therefore to serve more than one family, including, but not limited to, golf courses, country clubs, tennis courts, swimming pools, archery ranges and rifle or trap shooting ranges.'
The Carver Creek application was considered by the planning commission at public meetings held July 14 and August 11, 1971, at which time the proponents and opponents, including the parties and their counsel, expressed their views on the matter. At the conclusion of the second meeting, the planning commission voted to deny the Carver Creek application. Both meetings were recorded on tape and later transcribed into typed summaries.
These summaries (or minutes) did not recite the reasons for the planning commission's denial of the application. Aside from the minutes of the August 11 meeting, record of the commission's denial is found only in a notation on the application form.
The planning commission did not forward recommendations to the board of county commissioners (hereinafter referred to as the board), other than a bare notation of its negative vote on defendant's application. 2 However, there is testimony from which the trial court could find that the minutes and other documents compiled by the planning commission were forwarded to the board. The board considered the application at four separate meetings, held on September 14, October 12, October 26, and November 9, 1971.
Final action was taken by the board on November 9 after considering a report by a committee consisting of the county attorney and two county commissioners appointed at the October 26 meeting. The application was approved by a 3 to 2 vote of the county board.
Thereafter, plaintiffs, including the Board of Supervisors of Benton Township and several interested property owners, brought an action in district court against Carver Creek and the county board to determine the validity of the conditional-use permit.
The trial court, sitting without a jury, upheld the board's approval of the Carver Creek application and found:
'That the Carver County Board of Commissioners, after hearings, determined that a golf course was not detribmental to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of Carver County, or of the immediate neighborhood in which the golf course was to be located, and approved the issuance of a conditional use permit to Carver Creek Country Club, Inc., and prescribed the conditions to apply to such permit.'
Appeal was then taken to this court. Plaintiffs raise the following issues:
(1) Whether the board's decision was arbitrary as a matter of law because it was neither based on a sufficient record nor accompanied by findings or reasons in support thereof.
(2) Whether the board acted arbitrarily by failing to consider the recommendation of the planning commission.
(3) Whether the board arbitrarily delegated its authority by forming a subcommittee composed of two board members and the county attorney to investigate the Carver Creek application and report the results to the board.
(4) Whether the board acted arbitrarily by failing to consider the impact of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan of the county.
1. It is clear that the board neither accompanied its decision by findings of
fact, nor did the board preserve a record of its deliberations vis a vis the application at issue. Thus, under Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 167 N.W.2d 45 (1969), a prima facie case of arbitrariness was established. However, the record shows that the board had before it ample evidence that Carver Creek's proposed use would not endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the community. 3 This evidence was more than sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of arbitrariness,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington
...has been denied has a lighter burden than one who challenges approval of a permit. Bd. of Supervisors of Benton Twp. v. Carver Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 302 Minn. 493, 499, 225 N.W.2d 815, 819 (1975).5 We appreciate the participation of, and the information furnished by, the amici who serve or ......
-
Three Putt, LLC v. City of Minnetonka, No. A08-1436 (Minn. App. 6/2/2009)
...compared to the degree of proof required of a landowner whose application is denied." Bd. of Supervisors of Benton Twp. v. Carver County Bd. of Comm'rs, 302 Minn. 493, 499, 225 N.W.2d 815, 819 (1975). We "may look to the evidence in the record, absent a showing that the proposed use would b......
-
Corwine v. Crow Wing County
...by the trial court to the contrary would be clearly erroneous.' 297 Minn. 303, 211 N.W.2d 364. In Board of Benton Township v. Carver County Board, Minn., 225 N.W.2d 815, 818 (1975), however, we indicated in the following statement that the prima facie showing of arbitrariness may be rebutte......
-
Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee, 45075
...1, 206 N.W.2d 19 (1973). [303 MINN 85] Most recently in Board of Supervisors of Benton Township v. Carver County Bd. of Commrs., Minn., 225 N.W.2d 815 (filed January 17, 1975) this court has 'Moreover, since zoning laws are a restriction on the use of private property, we hold that there is......