May "anecdotal" testimony alone justify county denial of a docking facility when the record contains expert testimony supporting the application? BECA of Alexandria v. County of Douglas, 607 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. App. 2000). BECA sought conditional use permits for two residential planned unit developments (PUD's) on Lake Darling in Alexandria. The County ordinance requires PUD's on shorelands to centralize dock facilities in order to minimize shoreland impacts. At the planning commission hearing, neighboring residents expressed "anecdotal" concerns, but offered no expert testimony. On the basis of those concerns, the planning commission recommended permit denial on the basis of (1) common sense; (2) an expected 20% increase in boat traffic; (3) concern for degradation of water quality; and (4) water levels deemed inadequate for the expected boat traffic. The County Board thereafter held two hearings on the proposal, at which residents reiterated their opposition but, again, offered no expert testimony. The Board approved the preliminary plats and issued CUP's, but prohibited docks, rafts, buoys and watercraft mooring areas due to "concerns for the aquatic ecosystem (i.e. fishing and wildlife) and the shallow depth of the water." The Court of Appeals observed that denial of all docking facilities constituted a "severe limitation" of the riparian right. The Court further noted that in support of its application, BECA produced a DNR permit, documentation of Township approval and an environmental assessment prepared by its consultant. Noting the established principle of state law that expert testimony may not be rejected without adequate supporting reasons, the Court found the Board's decision to be arbitrary. The Court remanded to the Board solely to determine the number of slips to which BECA was entitled.
|
||
 |
||