by Kaitlin Heinen
VONCO IV Austin, LLC v. Mower County, et al.
(Minnesota Court of Appeals, February 19, 2013)
VONCO IV Austin, LLC challenged the Mower County Board of Commissioners’s decision to deny its conditional use permit to dispose of friable asbestos at its landfill facility. On appeal, the Minnesota Court Appeals must affirm the Board’s decision unless it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. VONCO first argued that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because the findings of fact were adopted after the resolution without using motion, second, and majority vote procedures. Minn. Stat. § 15.99 (2010) states that a board must adopt findings contemporaneously with its decision to deny a conditional use permit, or at the latest at “the next meeting following the denial of the request but before the expiration of the time allowed for making a decision.” The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the Board adopted its findings within a reasonable time after its denial. When the Board denied the conditional use permit, it had passed Resolution #28-12, which included the factual basis for its decision. The factual basis was nearly identical to the Board’s findings of fact, which were adopted at the same meeting. After discussion, the findings of fact were written down and signed by the vice-chairperson, which the Minnesota Court of Appeals held was consistent with § 15.99.
VONCO also argued that there was insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that there would be a problem with asbestos dust, and that such a problem would negatively impact property values. The Minnesota Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the record contained testimony that strong winds tend to blow dust and other debris from VONCO’s landfill onto neighboring properties. County staff members indicated that friable asbestos poses a risk of becoming airborne, and that this is especially dangerous because any exposure to asbestos dust creates a serious health risk. One county commissioner testified that he believed the addition of friable asbestos would negatively impact property values, based on his experience as a professional real estate appraiser. Because county officials have sufficient expertise to determine impacts on property values, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the denial of the conditional use permit.
VONCO further argued that the evidence in the record was insufficient because some of it was in the form of neighbor testimony. The board “may consider neighborhood opposition only if based on concrete information.” That is, vague “concerns” are not sufficient. However, neighbor testimony that is concrete, describes current conditions, and includes information based on scientific reports provides a sufficient basis to deny a conditional use permit. The Rythers, owners of a neighboring property, testified that the winds frequently blow dust and debris from VONCO’s property onto theirs, that a recent fire at VONCO’s site caused their home to be inundated with dust and ash, and that these conditions make it unlikely that VONCO would be able to prevent friable asbestos from escaping. The Rythers also provided the Board with copies of complaints, enforcement actions, and orders from the EPA regarding VONCO’s improper disposal of materials, including asbestos. Because the Rythers’ testimony was concrete and not limited to “concerns,” the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that this evidence was sufficient to support denying the conditional use permit request.
Finally, VONCO argued that the Board’s decision is arbitrary and capricious because the Board failed to consider reasonable conditions before denying the conditional use permit. The Board’s meeting notes showed that the Board considered more than 30 recommended conditions. Because the Board considered the possibility of approving the conditional use permit with conditions, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that it was not arbitrary and capricious for the Board to find these conditions insufficient and deny the request. The Mower County Board of Commissioners’ decision was affirmed.