This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Respondents Guy Gerald Sanschagrin, Kristine Knudson Sanschagrin, Jeffery Lowell Cameron, and Linda Kay Cameron jointly owned an undeveloped parcel upon which they installed a dock. In 2017, the City issued a notice of zoning violation to the Owners, stating that the dock violated the Shorewood Code of Ordinances because the property lacked a “principal dwelling” and because the Owners did not occupy the property. The notice directed them to either remove the dock or appeal the order to the City Council in writing by May 17, 2017. On May 13, 2017, the Owners responded to the City by letter. In the letter, the Owners asserted that the city code only prohibited “permanent” or “floating” docks on unoccupied property and they had installed a “seasonal” dock as defined in the code of ordinances for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (“LMCD code”).
A couple months later, the City notified the Owners that it had withdrawn its notice of violation and that all pending hearings related to the Owners’ appeal were cancelled. The City Council then considered amendments to the ordinances that governed use of docks by residents, and adopted an amended ordinance. As affecting the Owners’ property, the amended ordinance prohibited the use of any dock: permanent, seasonal, or otherwise. In June 2018, the Owners again installed the dock on the property, and the City issued a notice to the Owners stating that the dock violated the amended city code. The Owners again submitted a written response to the City, asserting that the City was mistaken in its conclusions, noting that the amended ordinances did not apply to their property, and asking the City to withdraw the violation notice. The City did not respond to this letter, and the Owners were charged by criminal complaint with two misdemeanor violations of the city code.
The Owners moved to dismiss the charges for lack of probable cause. Specifically, Owners asserted that the City’s first notice on May 11, 2017, was a “zoning decision” and that their appeal letter of May 13, 2017, was a “written application relating to zoning” under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 1(c). The district court granted the Owners’ pretrial motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed.
The court determined on appeal that the Owners’ letter failed to identify a specific license or permit that they sought from the City, and did not set forth that they requested a license or permit. The court also rejected the notion that the Owners’ letter contained an “implicit request” for governmental approval, as such as request required a “clear identification of the specific governmental approval being sought.” Moreover, the court held that the public interest in the predictable and consistent application of the legislatively-created automatic approval provision outweighed the Owners’ private interest in securing automatic approval of a dock installation based on their interpretation of the regulations governing the use of docks in the city of Shorewood. As such, the court of appeals’ holding was reversed, and the case was remanded to the district court to reinstate the City’s complaint and for further proceedings.
Minnesota v Sanchagin, 952 NW 2d 620 (12/30/2020)
Leave a Reply