4A - Conditional Use Application for Dog Grooming Business

Home Browse Search

07/07/2010 WED 16: 33 FAX 218 692 6970 Thomas & Associates PA 0004/005 City of Pequot Lakes Planning Commission July 7, 2010 �.. Page 3 the goals of its comprehensive plan. In Matter of Buffalo Bituminou's Petition for Conditional Use Permit, 1996 WL 363389 (Minn.App.1996). Until the district is rezoned or the zoning ordinance is either amended or successfully challenged, that determination is conclusive. Id. If a CUP applicant meets specified standards in the zoning ordinance, the CUP must be granted and a denial is considered arbitrary as a matter of law. Hay vs. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1, 5, 206 N.W.2d 19, 22 (1973) (emphasis added). In Eureka Township vs. Krapu,the applicants sought a CUP to operate a kennel to board up to 50 dogs upon property zoned Agricultural under the township's zoning plan. 2006 WL 1738039, 1 (Minn.App.). The boarding of animals was listed as a conditionally permitted use in the Agricultural zone. Id. At the hearing on the Krapus' application. for a CUP, members of the public voiced concerns about the kennel proposal, including the kennel noise and associated decrease in property values. Id. The planning commission voted to recommend to the town board approval of the applicants' permit, pending compliance with a number of conditions including noise abatement requirements. Id. (emphasis added). The town board met, and despite the planning commission's recommendation, voted to deny the applicants' request for a CUP. Id. The findings issued by the board in support of its denial included findings regarding concerns about noise, traffic, the �.. environment, aesthetics, and property values. Id. On review, the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that "neighborhood opposition alone is not a legally sufficient reason to deny a conditional use permit." Id. at 4. While the board was permitted to credit the fact of neighborhood opposition, it was not permitted to construe any factually unsubstantiated neighborhood opposition as a reliable basis for denial. Id. The Court also repeatedly overturned the board's findings, stating that "[t]he concerns that opposing neighbors raised here are chiefly anecdotal and only speculate that a kennel might result in such things as intolerable noise, environmental pollution, increased traffic, and the blemishing of aesthetic views." Id. Here, the City has designated animal boarding facilities as a conditional use within the Rural Residential zoning district in which the Garlands' property sits. Therefore, the City has already exercised its discretion and determined that the Facility is a permitted use and is consistent with the public health, safety, and general welfare, and compatible with the City's comprehensive plan. The Facility meets the specified standards in the City's Ordinance, and, accordingly, the Application must be granted. The City is, however, entitled to impose reasonable conditions specifically designed to limit any potential adverse effects of the Facility. It should also be noted that it is irrelevant whether the City intends to or actually does revise its Ordinance to prohibit this type of use in Rural Residential zoning districts — the authority that applies to the Application is the authority in place at the time the application was submitted. L:\Open matters\Garland,LaRee\3474=004 CUP Appeal\Correspondence\Out\07-07-10 1tr to City Planning Commission re denial of CUP application.doc