In the Matter of the Application of Andrew Wheeler for a Conditional Use Permit, a251796

Andrew Wheeler sought a conditional use permit to advertise his Cass County lakeshore home as a short-term rental for up to 25 people. 1
Cass County’s short-term rental ordinance requires a conditional use permit before licensing rentals advertising 13 or more occupants or six or more bedrooms. 2
The Planning Commission held a public meeting, heard opposition, discussed neighborhood impacts, and orally denied Wheeler’s application. 3
The initial written denial did not state reasons, and the Commission adopted written findings at its next meeting on October 14, 2025. 4
Wheeler petitioned for certiorari, arguing the Commission’s procedural errors created prima facie arbitrariness and that the denial was arbitrary and capricious. 5
The court affirmed, concluding the Commission timely denied the application, its written findings were reasonably delayed and consistent with the record, and the denial had a legally and factually sufficient basis. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Commission state reasons on the record? 7	Wheeler said the record lacked stated reasons for denial.	Cass County said the meeting transcript contained the reasons.	Yes; the transcript adequately recorded the reasons. 8
Did late written findings create prima facie arbitrariness? 9	Wheeler said missing the 60-day written-findings deadline triggered arbitrariness.	Cass County said oral denial was timely and the findings deadline was directory.	No; the brief delay was reasonable and nonfatal. 10
Were the written reasons consistent with the record? 11	Wheeler said the formal findings differed from the oral reasons.	Cass County said the written findings tracked the same concerns.	Yes; the written findings were consistent with the record. 12
Did Wheeler prove prima facie arbitrariness? 13	Wheeler said procedural violations shifted the burden to Cass County.	Cass County said Wheeler retained the burden because reasons were timely and recorded.	No; Wheeler kept the burden of proof. 14
Was the CUP denial arbitrary or capricious? 15	Wheeler said the denial lacked legal and factual support.	Cass County said the public-health-and-welfare reason was sufficient and supported by the record.	No; the denial was legally and factually sufficient. 16

Harlow v. State, Dep't of Hum. Servs., 883 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. 2016) (application of law reviewed de novo 17)
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 2015) (CUP denials reversed if unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious 18)
R.A. Putnam & Assocs. v. City of Mendota Heights, 510 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. App. 1994) (failure to record zoning basis creates presumption of arbitrariness 19)
Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. 1981) (reasons must be recorded or written in more than conclusory form 20)
Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536 (Minn. 2007) (mandatory statutory provisions express consequences for noncompliance 21)
Johnson v. Cook County, 786 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. 2010) (directory provisions require compliance but no automatic consequence 22)
Corwine v. Crow Wing County, 244 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 1976) (failure to state reasons contemporaneously makes decision prima facie arbitrary 23)
In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. 2008) (reasonableness of special-use decisions measured by local ordinance standards 24)
Hubbard Broad., Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982) (not every stated reason must independently be sufficient 25)