HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 156-23 - Resolution [VETOED]- Appeal of Zoning Board Denial of Variance Request CD2023-001AP by Reagan
RESOLUTION
Overturning the Zoning Board of Appeals Denial of a Variance for a New Billboard
Location Less Than 300 Feet from a Place of Worship With Two Conditions,
Located at 2836 E. Frontage Road, Highway 52.
WHEREAS, Reagan Outdoor Advertising of Rochester requested a variance to place a
new billboard 165-feet from a Place of Worship (CD2023-002VAR).
WHEREAS, The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on June 7, 2023, on the
variance, and voted 4-0 to deny the variance based on findings located in the Community
Development Memo.
WHEREAS, On June 20, 2023, Reagan Outdoor Advertising appealed the determination
of the Zoning Board of Appeals (CD2023-001AP).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester,
Minnesota, that after a hearing duly noticed and held on July 24, 2023, voted 5-2 to
overturn the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals with the following conditions:
1. That it remain a one-sided billboard, in perpetuity pointing away from the church,
and
2. The billboard will use the new mitigation latest technology.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS __________ DAY OF _______________, 2023.
___________________________________
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: __________________________
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________________, 2023.
___________________________________
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Memorandum
July 28, 2023
From: Mayor Kim Norton
Re: Mayor’s Commentary Attached to the Veto of a Council Resolution Granting
Appeal No. CD2023-001AP \[Overturning the Denial of a Variance by the Zoning
Board of Appeals\].
I have issued a veto of item G. 3 - Appeal No. CD2023-001AP by Reagan Outdoor
Advertising. I feel the City staff, with expertise in planning and zoning, who initially denied
the variance, had a strong and well-reasoned interpretation of the UDC and state law in
issuing their decision.
I also support the Council-appointed citizen Zoning Board of Appeals’ unanimous (4-0)
vote to deny the variance based on their understanding and interpretation of the UDC and
state law.
Finally, I have serious concerns about the rationale given during the City Council meeting
on July 24, 2023, to interpret the laws differently in the three (3) areas identified by staff
as not meeting the threshold required for the following reasons:
a. The site could be used in a reasonable manner without the variance.
b. There is no existing practical difficulty or unique feature of the site.
c. The variance could be detrimental to public health and create a slippery slope for
future billboard variances.
Due to the quasi-judicial nature of this type of decision-making – different from the usual
values-based or preferential decision-making on other general policy matters – I was not
satisfied that sound judicial judgement based on the law was utilized in identifying
rationale for over-riding the prior decisions of City staff and the Zoning Board of
Appeals. As a result, I fear that we not only put the City at risk legally, should the decision
be challenged, but also are setting a disturbing precedent for future variance or other
quasi-judicial decisions.
I ask that the City Council uphold my veto at the next City Council meeting.