Hay v. Grow Tp., Anoka County, 43492

• Decision Date: 26 March 1973
• Docket Number: No. 43492,43492
• Parties: Bruce B. HAY, et al., Respondents, v. TOWNSHIP OF GROW, ANOKA COUNTY, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 19

206 N.W.2d 19

296 Minn. 1

Bruce B. HAY, et al., Respondents, v. TOWNSHIP OF GROW, ANOKA COUNTY, et al., Appellants.

No. 43492.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 26, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Denial of special-use permit for a mobile home park was, as found by trial court, arbitrary where the governing body made no findings of fact and gave no legitimate reasons for its decision and where the evidence did not otherwise establish that location of a mobile home park at the proposed site would endanger the public health or safety or general welfare of the affected area or the community as a whole.

2. Denying a special-use permit to one applicant and granting such a permit to the other, without expressed reason or a showing that the preference was related to the health, welfare, or safety of the community or any other particular and permissible standards or conditions imposed by the relevant zoning ordinance, was, as trial court ruled, discriminatory and, as such, an unconstitutional denial of equal protection.

Babcock, Locher, Neilson & Mannella, Richard Beens and John M. Burke, Anoka, for appellants.

Smith, Juster, Feikema, Haskvitz & Casserly, Wyman Smith, and Ronald L. Haskvitz, Minneapolis, for respondents.

Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and OTIS, PETERSON, and KELLY, JJ.

PETERSON, Justice.

Defendants, Township of Grow and the members of its Town Board (hereafter, collectively, 'township'), appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial and from a judgment directing the township to issue to plaintiffs a special-use permit to construct a mobile home park on property owned by plaintiffs and situated within the township. The trial court concluded that the township had acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

Plaintiffs filed their application for a special-use permit on April 17, 1970. The township zoning plan then in existence had been adopted in 1950 and, by amendment in 1967, provided for mobile home parks in all districts by special-use permit. Approximately a week after plaintiffs' application was filed, another application for a special-use permit to construct and operate a mobile home park within the township was filed by Carlyle Company (hereafter 'Carlyle'). Plaintiffs' and Carlyle's properties are located in the same locale within the township. Eventually, the Carlyle application was granted, but plaintiffs' was denied.

Public hearings were held on plaintiffs' application in May 1970 and on Carlyle's application in June 1970. There were no recorded minutes of either of these meetings. On August 11, 1970, pursuant to the recommendation of the Township Planning and Zoning Commission (hereafter 'commission'), the town board gave preliminary approval to the Carlyle application subject to Carlyle's acquiescence to certain conditions, the most important of which was that Carlyle build a planned unit development of mobile homes and apartment units. On October 13, 1970, the town board granted a special-use permit to Carlyle for a planned unit development consisting of an established number of mobile home units and multiple dwelling units.

On October 21, prior to any further action on plaintiffs' application, the town board adopted a comprehensive zoning plan (Ordinance No. 8), which became effective January 1, 1971. Ordinance No. 8 repealed the 1950 zoning ordinance and amendments. Under this new ordinance the Carlyle property was zoned R--5 and M--2, classifications allowing for the construction of a mobile home park; but plaintiffs' land was zoned R--1, single-family rural, a classification which does not allow for mobile homes.

On December 29, 1970, two days before the effective date of the new comprehensive plan, the commission recommended that plaintiffs' application be denied. At this meeting, plaintiff Bruce B. Hay stated his willingness to meet all of the conditions imposed on the granting of the Carlyle special-use permit, specifically, in addition to all of the requirements expressly contained in the various local ordinances, plaintiffs would construct mobile home units and multiple dwelling units in the same ratio as had been required of Carlyle and within the same time limits as had been required of Carlyle. At the December 29, 1970, meeting, the commission stated its reason for recommending the Hay application be denied was--

'* * * (b)ased on original recommendation to Town Board re Carlyle proposal with apartment buildings to which Hay reportedly said no. We have approved establishment of one mobile home park and are not certain if Township can handle resultant rapid increase of population if two mobile home parks are allowed at this time.'

No record had been made of Hay's 'reportedly' initial rejection of the multiple-dwelling-unit requirement nor was this reason later considered by the town board when it denied plaintiffs' application.

On January 11, 1971, the town board, acting upon the commission's recommendation, denied plaintiffs' request for a special-use permit. The minutes of this meeting do not reveal any of the reasons upon which the town board based its denial, although several topics such as demands on municipal services, schools, and roads were discussed and Hay was questioned as to the time within which financing could be obtained. At trial in the district court, the parties stipulated that the acting secretary for the town board at the January 11 meeting would testify that the board took the following matters into consideration in denying plaintiffs' application:

'* * * population, density of population, impact of the application on municipal services, the pressure of this land on (Round Lake).'

No further explanation was offered by the township as to the basis upon which plaintiffs' application was denied.

The issue before the trial court was whether, under its 1950 zoning ordinance, as amended in 1967, the township validly could deny plaintiffs' application for a special-use permit. The court had no occasion to rule on the effect, if any, of the enactment of the January 1, 1971, comprehensive zoning plan, effective subsequent to the denial of plaintiffs' application. ¹ The judgment and order from which defendants appeal are based upon the conclusion that in the circumstances of this case denial of the special-use permit was both arbitrary and discriminatory.

1. Grow Township's zoning plan of 1950, as amended in 1967 by § 2--44(a), provided for the submission of applications for special-use permits to the Planning and Zoning Commission and established the following standard to be used by the commission in determining whether to recommend approval of the request:

'* * * (The commission) shall not recommend the granting of a permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance, or conducting of the use for which a Special Use Permit is sought will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. (The commission) may designate conditions and require guarantees in the granting of Special Use Permits.'

The ordinance obviously contains no specific standards. The trial court found that plaintiffs were willing to comply with conditions designated by the commission, and it further found that plaintiffs' proposed use would not...