County of Douglas, Appellant, vs. Richard N. Owen, Respondent, Judith A. Owen, Respondent.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-1776 County of Douglas, Appellant, vs. Richard N. Owen, Respondent, Judith A. Owen, Respondent. Filed August 25, 2009 Affirmed Collins, Judge* Douglas County District Court File No. 21-C8-06-000767 Christopher D. Karpan, Douglas County Attorney, 305 Eighth Avenue West, Alexandria, MN 56308 (for appellant) William J. Leuthner, 218 Third Avenue East, #102, Alexandria, MN respondents) 56308 (for Considered and decided by Minge, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Collins, Judge. * Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. UNPUBLISHED OPINION COLLINS, Judge Appealing from the denial of an injunction sought to restrict respondents rental of properties as vacation homes, appellant, a county, argues that the district court erred by ruling that (1) the properties are exempt from regulation because they are single-family dwellings and (2) the properties are not planned-unit developments under the zoning ordinance. We affirm. FACTS Respondents Richard and Judith Owen own three lakeshore properties (the properties). One, the Chateau, is a five-bedroom, four-bathroom house with gourmet kitchen purchased in 1984; another, the Haven, is a four-bedroom, two-bathroom house with full kitchen purchased in 2001; and the third, Lake Pointe Lodge, is a six-bedroom, three-bathroom house with gourmet kitchen purchased in 2004. The Owens primary residence is in Florida. The Owens both rent the properties to others as fully-furnished vacation homes and occasionally use the properties themselves. In 2006, the Owens rented out the Chateau for 13 days, the Haven for 23 days and one full month, and Lake Pointe Lodge for 19 days. In 2007, the Chateau was rented out for 17 days, the Haven for 31 days and one full month, and Lake Pointe Lodge for 30 days. Rental includes the use of a boat, various appliances, and outdoor furniture. The properties are advertised as private vacation rentals on websites, including that of the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce. 2 In 1991, appellant Douglas County s assistant zoning administrator, after receiving complaints from neighbors, found that the Chateau was being operated as a resort, which is a conditional use under the Douglas County Zoning Ordinance. The Owens ultimately appealed to the district court. The district court reversed the decision, finding that [t]he definition of resort contained in the zoning ordinance does not contemplate its application to a single-family dwelling. The county subsequently amended the zoning ordinance s definition of resort to include properties rented to transient visitors on a daily or weekly basis. In early 2006, the county sued to enjoin the Owens from operating a Commercial Planned Unit Development, i.e. resort and renting out properties without a permit. After a court trial, the district court ruled that the properties were designed for, and are being used as, single-family dwellings as defined by the ordinance and, therefore, the Owens cannot be required to obtain conditional use permits to rent out the properties on a short-term basis. The district court denied the requested injunction, and this appeal followed. DECISION The Douglas County zoning ordinances lists three categories of land use in residential shoreland districts like the one at issue here: permitted use, permitted accessory use, and conditional use. Douglas County, Minn., Zoning Ordinance § III(D)(5)-(7) (2007). The county argues that the properties fall within the definition of a commercial planned-unit development (PUD), thus requiring a conditional use permit, because they provide transient, short-term lodging spaces, rooms, or parcels and 3 because they fit the definition of resort. The district court found that the properties clearly do not fit the definition of planned unit development because they are singlefamily homes on single lots. The interpretation of an ordinance is a question of law for the court, which we review de novo. Eagle Lake of Becker County Lake Ass n v. Becker County Bd. of Comm rs, 738 N.W.2d 788, 792 (Minn. App. 2007) (citing Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass n v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.W.2d 117, 122 (Minn. 2003)). [W]here the question is whether an ordinance is applicable to certain facts, the determination of those facts is for the governmental authority, but the manner of applying the ordinance to the facts is for the court. Frank s Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608 (Minn. 1980). Zoning ordinances should be construed (1) according to their plain and ordinary meanings; (2) strictly against the municipal body and in favor of the property owner; and (3) in light of their underlying policy goals. Id. at 608-09. A PUD is defined as [a] type of development characterized by a unified site design for a number of dwelling units or sites on a parcel and can be designated either as commercial or residential based largely on whether it is service-oriented. County, Minn., Zoning Ordinance § VII (2007). Douglas Because the properties are not characterized by a unified site design for a number of dwelling units or sites, the district court did not err by finding that the properties do not constitute a commercial PUD under the ordinance. The parties agree that single-family dwellings are permitted uses in the residential shoreland district. A single-family dwelling is defined under the ordinance as [a] 4 freestanding (detached) residence structure designed for and occupied by one [ ] family only. A single family dwelling must be a minimum of [24] feet wide. Douglas County, Minn., Zoning Ordinance § VII. It is undisputed that the structure on each of the properties meets the minimum-width requirement. Thus, if the structures were designed for and occupied by one family, they constitute single-family dwellings under the plain text of the ordinance. The ordinance definition of family is an incomplete sentence: One or more persons occupying a single housekeeping unit and using common cooking facilities, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage [sic]. Douglas County, Minn., Zoning Ordinance § VII. Because courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature, State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269, 95 N.W.2d 6, 11-12 (1959), we are not at liberty to complete the definition. And here, the evidence establishes that each of the properties has one cooking facility shared by the persons occupying the unit, which fits the ordinance definition of family, such as it is. Consequently, we cannot conclude that the district court erred by finding that the properties are being used as single-family dwellings for which no conditional-use permit is required. The county s argument that it may further regulate single-family dwellings if they are being used as resorts also fails. Whether the properties are designated as resorts is irrelevant because, as was noted by the district court, [w]hile the use of the properties may meet the definition of a resort in the current ordinance, a resort is not specifically identified as either a permitted or conditional use anywhere in the ordinance. As 5 described above, a PUD involves multiple units on a single parcel, and although a resort is listed as an example of a PUD, the examples merely identify ways in which such multiple-unit developments may be organized, rather than dictating that any structure that falls within the definition of a resort is of itself a PUD. The zoning ordinance does not restrict the rental of single-family dwellings on a short-term basis, and the use of the Owens properties here does not compel the conclusion that the properties are PUDs. Our interpretation of the zoning ordinance is supported both by the fact that zoning ordinances are strictly construed against the county and that the county s underlying policy goals include the expansion of tourism in the area. Although regulations applicable to resorts indicate that the county also has a policy objective of protecting adjacent properties from a resort s impact, there are no restrictions on the number of people permitted, the ability to congregate around a campfire without disturbing the peace, or the ability to socialize on a property used as a single-family dwelling; indicating that the county s policy regarding resorts is not meant to restrict use of single-family dwellings, particularly when renting them out as vacation homes will expand tourism. Because we conclude that the district court did not err by finding that the Owens are using the properties as single-family dwellings and are not required to obtain a conditional-use permit, we need not reach other interdependent issues raised in this appeal. Affirmed. 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
