Cited by

While the board “may consider neighborhood opposition” that is “based on concrete information,” the “simple fact that community members oppose a landowner using [their] land for a particular purpose is not a legally sufficient reason for denying a special use permit,”

5 (citing Frank’s Nursery Sales, -09 (Minn. 1980)).

“A zoning ordinance should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning and in favor of the property owner.” (citing Frank’s Nursery Sales, -09 (Minn. 1980)).

Out of respect for the separation of powers, our review is limited and deferential, see Big Lake, d at 491, and a relator bears the burden of persuading a reviewing court that the reasons for denial of a CUP were “legally insufficient or had no factual basis in the record.” (citing Hubbard Broad., ) .

“The permit applicant has the burden of persuading this court that the reasons for the denial either are legally insufficient or had no factual basis in the record.” Yang v. County of Carver

“The pe rmit applicant has the burden of persuading this court that the reasons for the denial either are legally insufficient or had no factual basis in the record.”

To obtain reversal, the applicant must show “that the reasons for the denial either are legally insufficient or had no factual basis in the record.” d 828, 832 (Minn. App. 2003).

of Carver , d 828, 832 (Minn. App. 2003).

But the denial of a CUP is unreasonable when the “applicant establishes that all of the standards specified by the zoning ordinance as conditions of granting the permit have been met.” Yang v. County of Carver

Compare Krummenacher, d at 726-27 (stating that municipalities are not required to permit the expansion of nonconformities), (“A county’s denial of a conditional use permit is arbitrary where the applicant establishes that all of the standards specified by the zoning ordinance as conditions of granting the permit have been met.”).

We have held that “A city may consider neighborhood opposition only if based on concrete information.”

Denial of an IUP “is arbitrary where the applicant establishes that all of the standards specified by the zoning ordinance as conditions of granting the permit have been met.” Yang v. C ounty of Carver

See Yang v. County of Carver

But “ [a] city may consider neighborhood opposition only if based on concrete information.”

of Carver, (citing Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 196, ).

(reversing denial of CUP in part because no basis in record for board determination that excessive traffic would be created by proposed use).

“A county’s denial of a conditional use permit is arbitrary where the applicant establishes that all of the standards specified by the zoning ordinance as conditions of granting the permit have been met.”