4A - Conditional Use Application for Dog Grooming Business

Home Browse Search

07/07/2010 WED 16: 33 FAX 218 692 6970 Thomas & Associates PA 0005/005 City of Pequot Lakes Planning Commission July 7, 2010 �-- Page 4 The concerns voiced by the Garlands' neighbors were factually unsubstantiated and therefore the Commission cannot base a denial of the Application on those grounds. There was no scientific or other evidence provided by any of those voicing opposition to support their position that the noise from the proposed use would be outside of that allowed by the Ordinance, and certainly no appraisals or other support for the proposition that adjacent property owners' property values would be decreased as a result of the boarding facility. Even if the grounds for the Commission's denial of the Application had been proper,the findings set forth by the Commission were clearly insufficient. The Minutes from the June Meeting set forth the following findings of fact, purportedly offered in support of the Commission's motion "to not approve"the Application: 1. Adequate measures have been taken or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, and vibration, so none of these will constitute a nuisance and to control lights and signs in such a manner, that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. 2. The conditional use should not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose permitted on that property, nor substantially diminish or impair values in the immediate vicinity. �- Undoubtedly, the "findings of fact" fail entirely to support a denial of the Application. On the contrary, the findings of fact actually appear support a grant of the Application, seemingly stating that adequate conditions have been or will be imposed, and that the conditional use of the Facility is therefore not injurious to the neighboring property owners. Even if the Commission had intended to pinpoint these "findings" as conditions that cannot be met by the Garlands, the findings are clearly based solely upon the factually unsupported concerns of the neighboring property owners. As discussed above, this would not be proper grounds to deny the Application. For the reasons set forth herein, we urge the Commission to apply the appropriate legal standards and approve the Application upon reconsideration. Regards, Q Kimberly . Brzezins� KEB/cj a cc: Charles Marohn(via facsimile) Jeff and LaRee Garland (via U.S. Mail) LAOpen matters\Garland,LaRee\3474-004 CUP Appeal\Correspondence\Out\07-07-10 Itr to City Planning Commission re denial of CUP application.doc