State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Daniel NMN Adams, Appellant.

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1994).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C8-96-150

John Charles Kreuz,
Relator,

vs.

St. Louis County Planning and Zoning Commission,
Respondent.

  Filed August 20, 1996
Affirmed
Parker, Judge

St. Louis County Planning and Zoning Comission

John Charles Kreuz, 7670 Pine Tree Road, Side Lake, MN 55781 (relator pro se )

Alan L. Mitchell, St. Louis County Attorney, Amy J. Hunt, Assistant County Attorney,100 North Fifth Avenue West, #501, Duluth, MN 55802-1298 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Parker, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Foley, Judge. 1

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

PARKER , Judge
Relator John Kreuz challenges the St. Louis County Planning and Zoning Commission's grant of a conditional use permit. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N

1. Conditional Use Permit
Zoning decisions are entitled to great deference, and this court will reverse only where the municipality's decision has no rational basis. SuperAmerica Group v. City of Little Canada , 539 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan. 5, 1996). Pursuant to the strong presumption favoring a municipality's action, a reviewing court will not impose its own conclusions so long as the municipality's action is "at least doubtful or fairly debatable." Arcadia Dev. Corp. v. City of Bloomington , 267 Minn. 221, 226, 125 N.W.2d 846, 850 (1964).
Kreuz contends that this court should stay this appeal until the district court resolves his pending declaratory judgment action regarding the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). Because the St. Louis County Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific mechanism for appeals, this court clearly has jurisdiction of this matter:
[A] writ of certiorari issued by this court should be the sole remedy available to obtain review of a county board's decision with regard to conditional use permits.

Shetka v. Aitkin County , 541 N.W.2d 349, 354 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Feb. 27, 1996). We find no reason to stay this action pending resolution of the declaratory judgment action.
Kreuz argues that due process was violated because, while notification for the December 21, 1995, hearing was adequate regarding the original application, this notification does not extend to either the hearing on the staff "plan" or to the EAW.
Minn. Stat. § 394.26, subd. 2 (1994), provides that "[n]otice of the time, place, and purpose of any public hearing shall be given * * * at least ten days before the hearing." While due process requires notice of the purpose of a hearing, it does not require that the details of the proposal be disclosed. See Haen v. Renville County Bd. of Comm'rs , 495 N.W.2d 466, 470 (Minn. App. 1993) (adequate notice for public hearing on CUP application was provided where notices of two of the three hearings on the matter were published in the official county newspaper and sent to neighboring property owners), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 1993). Here, due process was satisfied because the Commission provided notice of the general purpose of the hearing and thus sufficiently alerted those individuals who objected to the conditional use permit. See id.
Finally, Kreuz contends that the Commission's decision to grant the conditional use permit was arbitrary and capricious because it represents solely the will of the Commission.
St Louis County Zoning Ordinance art. VIII, § 3.06, provides that a conditional use permit may be granted only upon a finding of the following four conditions:
1. The use conforms to the land use or comprehensive plan of the county, if any.
2. The use is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
3. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement in the surrounding area of uses permitted by right in the zone district.
4. The location and character of the proposed use is considered to be consistent with a desirable pattern of development in the area.

The Commission found that these four factors were satisfied. The Commission based its decision on relevant facts such as: the land use plan, the historic use of the property as a campground, the impact on neighbors of year-round use, and the fact that the primary use of the property was to remain as a youth camp.
The record indicates that the Commission considered both sides of this issue. The Commission held three hearings and provided explicit written findings explaining why it granted the conditional use permit. In addition, the Commission imposed many restrictions on the conditional use permit, including: (1) the camp shall either own or lease the entire 17.3 acre lot; (2) the conditional use permit shall be valid only for a nonprofit youth camp; (3) no recreational vehicle sites shall be allowed; and (4) the maximum overnight occupancy, excluding a camp director's residence, shall be 60.
Given the broad discretion that municipalities have to make routine municipal decisions, we hold that the Commission's grant of the conditional use permit was not arbitrary or capricious.
2. Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Kreuz has challenged the Commission's decision not to require an EAW in a declaratory judgment action currently pending in St. Louis County District Court. Minn. R. 4410.0400, subp. 4 (1995), provides:
Decisions by a RGU [here, the St. Louis County Planning Commission] on the need for an EAW * * * are final decisions and may be reviewed by a declaratory judgment action * * * in the district court of the county where the proposed project, or any part thereof, would be undertaken.

Thus, the Commission's decision not to require an EAW is not before us.
  Affirmed.