§
Subdivision 1.By ordinance.
The board may by ordinance designate certain types of developments, including planned unit developments and certain land development activities as conditional uses under zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approved upon a showing by an applicant that standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied. Such standards and criteria shall include both general requirements for all conditional uses and, insofar as practicable, requirements specific to each designated conditional use.
§
Subd. 2.Issuance, review.
Conditional use permits shall be issued by the officer administering the official controls only upon the order of the board or the planning commission as designated by ordinance as the approval authority for one or more categories of conditional uses. The planning commission shall in all instances have an opportunity to review conditional uses prior to any final decision by the designated approval authority. Public hearings shall be held in accordance with section 394.26. In connection with ordering the issuance of a conditional use permit the designated approval authority may impose such additional restrictions or conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public interest, including but not limited to matters relating to appearance, lighting, hours of operation and performance characteristics. When appropriate, restrictive covenants may be entered into regarding such matters.
§
Subd. 3.Duration.
A conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as the conditions agreed upon are observed, provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the board from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses.
§
Subd. 4.Copy filed.
A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be recorded with the county recorder or registrar of titles. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of the property involved. The board by ordinance shall designate the county official or employee responsible for meeting the requirements of the subdivision.
Notes of Decisions
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 617 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 2000).
· cites it 4× “9 (1998) (providing for district court review of board of adjustment decisions) with Minn.Stat. § 394.301 (1998) (authorizing county conditional use permit proceedings but without providing for district court review).”
Neitzel v. Cnty. of Redwood, 521 N.W.2d 73 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “361, subd, 1 is also available for county board decisions about zoning matters made pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 394.301. Because no right of judicial review of the county board’s decision has been provided by statute or appellate rules, a writ of certiorari issued by this court was…”
Bartheld v. Cnty. of Koochiching, 716 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 394.301 , subd. 1 (2004). When a county states reasons for denying the permit, a reviewing court may reverse the decision if the reasons are legally insufficient or if the decision is without factual basis.”
Schwardt v. Cnty. of Watonwan, 656 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 394.301, subd. 1 (2002). To show that the board acted unreasonably, the Schwardts must establish that the proposal did not meet one of the standards set out in the Ordinance and that the grant of the CUP was an abuse of discretion.”
Dege v. City of Maplewood, 416 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 394.301 , subd. 3 (1986); see also Orme v.”
Connaughty v. Winona Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 849 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Relators next argue that the CUP for the project was improperly issued because it was based on inadequate environmental review. We disagree. By statute, counties may approve conditional uses if the applicant satisfies the standards set out in the applicable county ordinance.”
Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood, 770 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
“' § 394.301, subd. 3 (2008) (indicating that the statutory restriction on a local government’s authority to invalidate a CUP is not intended to prevent zoning changes that may affect a CUP’s status).”
Centra Homes, LLC v. City of Norwood Young Am., 834 N.W.2d 581 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “361 when it denied conditional-use permit because conditional-use permits are governed by section 394.301), review denied (Minn. Oct.”
State Ex Rel. Neighbors Org., Etc. v. Dotty, 396 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The trial court ruled that Volner was lawfully operating the Club, since Minn.Stat. § 394.301 (1984) provides that a conditional use permit continues until its provisions are violated.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.