Bruce Twp. v. Schmitz
| Decision Date | 21 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | A15-1163 |
| Parties | Bruce Township, Respondent, v. Kevin Schmitz, Appellant, Nathan A. Baum, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
Affirmed
Todd County District Court
Joseph A. Krueger, Brown & Krueger, P.A., Long Prairie, Minnesota; and
Jason J. Kuboushek, Nathan C. Midolo, Iverson Reuvers Condon, Bloomington, Minnesota (for respondent)
Gary W. Koch, Matthew C. Berger, Peter J. Hemberger, Gislason & Hunter LLP, New Ulm, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Jesson, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Kevin Schmitz constructed an animal feedlot on his property in Bruce Township, Todd County, which has enacted an ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for new feedlots of a certain size. In this action, the township sought to declare its feedlot ordinance valid and enforce a related conditional-use permit on Schmitz's property. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the township. On appeal, Schmitz argues that the township's failure to comply with statutory requirements to file the ordinance with the county recorder and furnish a copy to the county law library render the ordinance unenforceable. Because under Minn. Stat. § 462.36 (2014), failure to record the conditional-use-permit ordinance does not affect its validity, and because the statutory filing requirements at issue are directory, not mandatory, we reject his argument. We also affirm the district court's summary judgment on Schmitz's claim of interference with a vested property right and equitable-estoppel defense.
In 2002, Bruce Township adopted a feedlot ordinance, which requires a conditional-use permit before expanding an existing feedlot or constructing a new feedlot housing more than ten animal units. Bruce Township, Minn., Feedlot Ordinance §§ 725.11-.93, 726 (2002).1 The ordinance also contains setback requirements from existing residences. Feedlot Ordinance §§ 725.51-.52. A Minnesota statute specifies that, when a town adopts a zoning ordinance, the governing body "shall record" a certified copy with the county recorder. Minn. Stat. § 394.33, subd. 1 (2014). Another statute provides that a copy of the ordinance "must be furnished to the county law library." Minn. Stat. § 415.021 (2014). A third statute requires that certain ordinances, including those relating to conditional-use permits, "shall be filed with the county recorder," but also specifies that the failure to record an ordinance "shall not affect its validity or enforceability." Minn. Stat. § 462.36, subd. 1. After its enactment, the township did not file the ordinance with the county recorder or furnish a copy to the county law library.
In September 2012, Schmitz, who had operated feedlots in another county, entered into a contract for deed in property located in the township in order to conduct a livestock operation. Between September and November 2012, he incurred expenses by making improvements to the property, including installing electric and water lines and moving equipment from another location.
When planning the project, Schmitz had contacted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) because in Benton County, where he had previously operated a feedlot, MPCA regulations were the only applicable regulations. Around the end of September, he also met with Ed Uhlenkamp, a Todd County resource conservationist. The two men had previously discussed plans for another feedlot site, which Schmitz was considering developing at a different location. During the earlier discussion, Uhlenkamp gave Schmitz the applicable rules for the other site, but did not mention that some townships have their own zoning regulations.
In November 2012, Uhlenkamp drove by the Bruce Township site owned by Schmitz and saw livestock there. He emailed the town clerk, stating that the site would not be in compliance with state and county feedlot rules. The clerk responded that a conditional-use permit from the township would also be necessary for a feedlot.
In December 2012, Schmitz and the contract-for-deed vendors applied to Bruce Township for a conditional-use permit for a feedlot for 200-300 animal units from October 1 to May 1, and 30-40 animal units from May 1 to October 1.2 After public hearings focused on setback requirements, the township planning commission recommended, and the Bruce Township Board of Supervisors approved, a conditional-use permit that required the applicants to obtain a variance from applicable setback requirements.
In March 2013, Schmitz withdrew the permit for 300 animal units and submitted a new application for a 30-animal-unit feedlot. After another public hearing and a planning-commission recommendation, the board of supervisors approved the conditional-use permit with conditions of enforcing a 30-animal-unit limit, surveying the property, and bringing into compliance an existing nonconforming building on the boundary line between Schmitz's property and an adjacent property. Schmitz did not meet these conditions and contends that they rendered a feedlot operation on the site impracticable.
In February 2014, the township filed a complaint in district court, seeking an injunction prohibiting Schmitz from operating a feedlot that did not meet ordinance requirements and the conditional-use-permit conditions. The complaint alleged that a township-board member had visited the property and observed more than 65 animals on Schmitz's property. Schmitz filed an answer and counterclaims, seeking dismissal of the complaint, an injunction against enforcing the ordinance, a declaration that it was unenforceable against him, and damages. He alleged that the ordinance was not enforceable because it had not been filed with the county recorder or placed in the county law library, as required by statute. He also asserted a claim for interference with a vested property right and an affirmative defense of equitable estoppel, maintaining that he received notice of the ordinance only after incurring expenses to prepare the property for feedlot use. He alleged additional counterclaims of an unconstitutional taking and trespass. The township then filed the feedlot ordinance with the county recorder and placed a copy in the county law library.
After cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the district court granted the township's motion and denied Schmitz's motion. The district court held as a matter of law that the township ordinance was not void for failure to comply with statutory filing requirements. The district court also concluded that, under undisputed facts, Schmitz had not acquired a vested right to use the property as a feedlot and could not prove reasonable reliance on any wrongful conduct by the township to support an equitable-estoppel defense. Pursuant to the parties' later stipulation, the district court entered final judgment, ordered Schmitz to comply with the ordinance requirements, and dismissed his trespass and constitution-related claims with prejudice. This appeal follows.
On appeal from summary judgment, this court determines whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court correctly applied the law. Mattson Ridge, LLC v. Clear Rock Title, LLP, 824 N.W.2d 622, 627 (Minn. 2012). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted. Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 734 N.W.2d 623, 630 (Minn. 2007). But we review de novo the district court's application of the law. Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co., 819 N.W.2d 602, 610 (Minn. 2012). The interpretation of an existing statute or ordinance presents a question of law for the court. RDNT, LLC, v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71, 75 (Minn. 2015).
In Minnesota, county governments, in all but the most populous counties, are largely responsible for land use planning and zoning activities. Minn. Stat. § 394.21 (2014). Each county is encouraged to prepare and implement a community-based comprehensive plan and, based upon that plan, to adopt "official controls." Minn. Stat. §§ 394.23, .232 (2014). These official controls, adopted by county ordinance, require public input and may be used for purposes as varied as wetlands preservation, sewage disposal and feedlot zoning. Minn. Stat. §§ 394.24-.26 (2014). Counties are also authorized to issue conditional-use permits, which may be approved on a showing that the standards and criteria stated in the relevant ordinance are satisfied. Minn. Stat. § 394.301 (2014). The Minnesota legislature has made clear that townships, such as Bruce Township, are also vested with authority to enact official controls, such as zoning ordinances, as long as they are consistent with, and no less restrictive than, county controls. Minn. Stat. § 394.33 (2014). We have held that this statute did not prohibit a township from validly enacting a feedlot ordinance that is more restrictive than county ordinances. Altenburg v. Bd. of Supervisors of Pleasant Mound Twp., 615 N.W.2d 874, 880 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Nov. 21, 2000).
When a municipality, such as a township, undertakes land use planning, including adoption of a comprehensive plan, official controls and zoning ordinances, it does so based on the authority created by the legislature set out in Minnesota's municipal planning act, Minn. Stat. §§ 462.351-.365 (2014). Under that act, townships, like counties, also have authority to issue conditional-use permits. Minn. Stat. § 462.3595.
Schmitz concedes that Bruce Township had the authority to adopt the feedlot ordinance. He contends, however, that the township's undisputed failure to comply with the statutory mandate to record the ordinance renders it unenforceable against his feedlot.
Recording requirement and...
To continue reading
Request your trial