Laserfiche WebLink
J. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />8. <br />9. <br />10. <br />A conditional use peimit may be denied in some circums^ces on the <br />■ h T if ic in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Hubbanj basts .that It ts ^^2 N.W.Zd 757 (Minn. 1982); <br />. ri~ n7 Maole^^od . 467 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. App. <br />(Minn. 1978). <br />Exoert opinion which merely speculates on possible h^ds and <br />expressing concern is not sufficient Fa^thbumer? v. Countv of Carlto n. <br />504 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. App. 1993). <br />Neighborhood opposition and expressions of concern for public safety <br />L welfare are not sufficient as basis CbMhajSsn <br />Fsiate.s Resijjenis Assoc, v. CitY pf <br />|Qga^- isj^rthwestem Tnllege v. City of Ardgn HiUs. 281 N. <br />865 (Minn. 1979). <br />Non-expert opinions regarding the effect of a proposed use on the value <br />of adjai^nt property, on poUuUon of the water, on notse n^sanw. on <br />dust problems and on aesthetic impact on the environmMt is nM <br />..■ffiLnt to deny a conditional use penniL Sf"ti C99IHY <br />,.c Jriiv of Shakopee . 417 N.W.2d 721 (^. <br />re^ew denied! TTiis is especiily roe if the appUcant has subtmtted <br />expert testimony to the contrary. <br />If the appUcant compUes with the conditions in the ordinance for <br />obS^: special L permit, then effea on “ <br />not relevant Wefliinf v HlY 9f 51. L9«8 m’w 7d I7I <br />(Minn 1969); Dstrand v. Village of North SU Paul> H7 N.W.2d 571 <br />(Minn. 1966). <br />A mere Ust of the sources of information to support a denial is not <br />sufficient The findings should show how the information w^ <br />mm • « W%. _ • A. I• m ^ * _ _ A. Valiev 1 1 XX <br />V ritvofHugo. 388 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1986), <br />Limitation of the number of one type of use in an area is not a leg^ <br />basis to deny. Metro 500 Inc, v r\tv nf Brooklyn Park. 195 N.W.2d <br />558 (Minn. 1972). <br />Aesthetic considerations which adversely affect value of adjacent <br />properties may be considered but may not be the sole <br />Hpnial r. R. Investments. Inc, v. Village of Shoreview. 304 N.W.za <br />320 (Minn. 1981). <br />015/220777664/3195 <br />Page 101