Zweber v. Scott County Bd. Of Comm'rs, A09-1990

• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: STONEBURNER.
• Decision Date: 13 July 2010
• Docket Number: File No. 2009-419,A09-1990
• Citation: Zweber v. Scott Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, A09-1990, File No. 2009-419 (Minn. App. Jul 13, 2010)
• Parties: Mark Zweber, Relator, v. Scott County Board of Commissioners, Respondent.

Mark Zweber, Relator,

v.Scott County Board of Commissioners, Respondent.

A09-1990

File No. 2009-419

State Of Minnesota In Court Of Appeals

Filed July 13, 2010

Christopher R. Grote, John C. Ekman, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator)

Jason J. Kuboushek, Iverson Reuvers, Bloomington, Minnesota (for respondent)

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. §480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).

Reversed and remanded Stoneburner, Judge

Scott County Board of Commissioners

Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Collins, Judge.^*

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

STONEBURNER, Judge

Appellant challenges respondent's denial of approval of his proposed subdivision plat. Because the proposal meets all the applicable enforceable standards in the county'sordinance, the respondent lacked discretion to deny approval of the proposal. Therefore, we reverse and remand for approval of the proposal.

FACTS

Appellant Mark Zweber, a real-estate developer, owns a 100-acre parcel of land in Credit River Township, Scott County. The property is zoned as Rural Residential Single Family. Zweber's parcel is bordered on all sides by other privately owned property. The parcel is separated from County Highway 27 (a north-south road) by the Skluzacek property on the west and is separated from County Highway 8 (an east-west road) by the Mares property in the south. The property to the east of Zweber's parcel has been developed as "the Territory Development" (Territory). Several residential properties border Zweber's parcel on the north.

In 2008, Zweber applied for approval of a proposed subdivision, the Estates of Liberty Creek (proposal).¹ The proposal is for three outlots in the northern portion of the parcel and nine buildable lots along a road (Mares Court) and cul-de-sac (Aurora Point) in the southern portion of the parcel. Mares Court runs east-west along the southern border of Zweber's parcel and connects on its east end to Bitterbush Pass, a dedicated street in Territory. Mares Court is designed for future connection to the Mares property in the south. Mares Court connects on its west end to Aurora Point, which runs north off of Mares Court. The proposal does not contain any north-south roads connecting the building lots to the outlots. To get from Estates of Liberty Creek to County Highway 8, traffic would travel east on Mares Court to Territory then south through Territory to Dakota Avenue, which intersects with County Highway 8. To reach County Highway 27, traffic would take the same route and then continue west on County Highway 8 to County Highway 27.

During the public hearings on the proposal, respondent Scott County Board of Commissioners (the board) questioned whether the proposal meets "interconnectivity" requirements. Zweber countered that the proposal meets all requirements in the county ordinance which, he argued, does not contain enforceable interconnectivity standards. The board wanted Zweber to provide for a north-south road connecting the buildable lots with the outlots. Zweber stated that such a requirement would make the project economically unfeasible. The board ultimately denied approval, concluding that the proposal does not meet the standards set forth in the following five sections of the county ordinance:

2-2-2(2) The layout of future streets. Local streets shall be planned to provide street connections to adjoining parcels, neighborhoods, or future development [of] open spaces as a means of discouraging the reliance on County and State roads for local trips.

7-4-13(b) Cul-de-Sacs/Dead-End Streets. Permanent cul-desacs shall only be allowed in cases where proper interconnectivity of local streets will be provided....

7-4(1) Streets, Continuous. Except for cul-de-sacs, streets shall connect with streets already dedicated in adjoining or adjacent subdivisions, or provide for future connections to adjoining unsubdivided tracts, or shall be a reasonable projection of streets in the nearest subdivided tracts.

7-4(5) Provisions for Resubdivision of Large Lots and Parcels. When a tract is subdivided into larger than normal building lots or parcels, such lots or parcels shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and openings of future streets and appropriate resubdivision....

7-1 Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A proposed subdivision shall conform to the Comprehensive Plan....

The board also referenced the Credit River Growth Area Alternative Urban Areawide Review (the Credit River AUAR) interconnectivity standards to explain its decision.

In this certiorari appeal, Zweber challenges the board's decision, arguing that the board had no discretion to deny Zweber's application because: (1) the "interconnectivity" requirements contained in the ordinance are unreasonably vague and, therefore, unenforceable; (2) sections 7-4(1) and 7-4(5) of the ordinance do not apply to his proposal; and (3) section 7-1, requiring conformance with the county's comprehensive plan, and the Credit River AUAR cannot be used to justify the board's decision.

DECISION

Standard of Review

"On a writ of certiorari, our review is limited to determining whether a county board of commissions had jurisdiction; whether its proceedings were fair and regular; and whether its decision was unreasonable, without evidentiary support, or based on an incorrect theory of law." PTL, LLC v. Chisago County Bd. of Comm 'rs, 656 N.W.2d 567, 571 (Minn. App. 2003). Because local officials enjoy broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny proposed land uses, we give great deference to their land-use decisions, and we only reverse on rare occasions where the decision lacks a rational basis.

SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan. 5, 1996). "A decision lacks a rational basis if it is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, premised on a legally insufficient reason, or based on subjective or unreasonably vague standards." PTL, 656 N.W.2d at 571. Denial of a land-use request is not arbitrary where at least one of the stated reasons satisfies the rational-basis test. Trisko v. City of Waite Park, 566 N.W.2d 349, 352 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Sept. 25, 1997).

This court interprets an ordinance as it would a statute, see Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 339 n.3 (Minn. 1984), under a de novo standard of review, Gadey v. City of Minneapolis, 517 N.W.2d 344, 347 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 1994). When an ordinance's words are clear and free from ambiguity, we do not disregard the letter of the ordinance to pursue its spirit. See Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2008). We interpret an ordinance's words according to their common and approved usage. See Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2008).

I. The county's ordinance does not contain enforceable standards for interconnectivity.

"Under Minnesota law, when an ordinance specifies minimum standards to which subdivisions must conform, local officials lack discretionary authority to deny approval of a preliminary plat that meets those standards." PTL, 656 N.W.2d at 571. The "standards must be sufficiently precise to ensure the application of objective standards to all similarly situated property, to adequately inform landowners of the requirements they must satisfy to gain subdivision approval, and to allow a reviewing court to evaluatenoncompliance." Id. at 572. Standards are vague and, therefore, unenforceable if they are merely "general statements of purpose" or do not "set forth clear and objective standards a developer must meet to obtain subdivision approval." Id.

The parties agree that, aside from provisions cited by the board as governing "interconnectivity," Zweber's proposal meets all other applicable requirements contained in the ordinance, including prerequisites for density, lot size and width, and setbacks. Zweber argues that the provisions referencing connections or "interconnectivity" in the county's ordinance particularly in sections 2-2-2(2) and 7-4-13(b) are unreasonably vague and, therefore, are not enforceable provisions. We agree.

Section 2-2-2(2) of the county's ordinance states that "[l]ocal streets shall be planned to provide street connections to adjoining parcels, neighborhoods, or future development [of] open spaces as a means of discouraging the reliance on County and State roads for local trips." (Emphasis added.) Section 7-4-13(b) provides, in relevant part, that "[p]ermanent cul-de-sacs shall only be allowed in cases where proper interconnectivity of local streets will be provided." (Emphasis added.)

Term "interconnectivity" is not defined in the county ordinance. "Interconnect" means "[t]o be connected with each other." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 940 (3d ed. 1992). And "connect" means "[t]o join or fasten together." Id. at 399. If two things connect or are joined or fastened together they are interconnected. Section 2-2-2(2) of the ordinance explains the purpose of the interconnectivity requirement, stating that street connections are to be provided "as a means of discouraging the reliance on County and State roads for local trips."

As Zweber argues, the plain language of section 2-2-2(2), requires only that: (1) a subdivision plat must provide streets that join with the streets existing in, and providing access to, adjoining parcels or neighborhoods and (2) in the case of a subdivision adjoining an undeveloped open space, the streets provided must be planned such that future streets in the adjoining undeveloped open space could eventually connect with the subdivision's streets. And, the plain language of section 7-4-13(b) provides that permanent cul-de-sacs, such as the one in Zweber's proposal, are only allowed where the planned subdivision will otherwise provide the proper joining of local streets. But the ordinance...