OPINION
Rеlators BECA of Alexandria, LLP, and Carlson Real Estate Co. challenge by writ of certiorari the decision of respondent Douglas County Board of Commissioners (the board) to prohibit all docks, rafts, buoys, or mooring facilities as a condition for granting rélators conditional use permits (CUPs) for two parcels of land located in Douglas County. Because relators established their entitlement to a CUP for the parcel knovku as Stone Gate North and no evidence to the contrary was presented, we reverse as to that permit. Because some evidence was presented to challenge issuance of a CUP for the parcel known as Stone Gate, but that evidence was legally insufficient to support the board’s decision, we remand that part of the board’s decision to determine the number of mooring slips that would be compatible with public health, sаfety, and welfare.
FACTS
Relator BECA, a limited partnership, is purchasing two parcels of land from Carlson Real Estate Co., also a partnership, to develop two residential planned unit developments (PUDs). Although the рarcels are not contiguous, both are on Lake Darling in Alexandria and are on the same shallow, weedy bay.
BECA plans to build 30 detached residential units in the larger PUD, called Stone Gate, which encompasses аbout 22 acres. The proposal for this parcel meets all density, set-back from the ordinary high-water mark, and open space zoning requirements; no zoning variances are sought. The parcel has about 1,200 fеet of shoreline.
BECA also plans to develop a second PUD, with 19 attached units on a 12.6-acre *462 parcel with 1,000 feet of shoreline. This parcel, called Stone Gate North, also meets all density, set-back from the ordinary high-water mark, and open-space zoning requirements, and no zoning variances are sought.
BECA brought both projects before the planning commission for preliminary plat approval and CUPs, which are rеquired for PUDs. If the parcels were divided into traditional lot block developments, no CUPs would be required. Unlike a lot block development, however, a PUD must meet more stringent set-back requirements, be attached to сity water and sewer, provide storm water drainage and grading, and limit the use of fertilizers. In addition, PUDs located on shorelands are required to centralize dock facilities to minimize impact on shoreland environment.
Eаch PUD plan includes one centralized mooring dock for each PUD, with a slip for each residence, or 30 slips at Stone Gate and 19 at Stone Gate North. Covenants written into the homeowners’ association аgreements will include a no-wake policy, restrict access through a marked channel, and prohibit trimming or destruction of vegetation and application of fertilizers within 75 feet of the ordinary high-water mark. In both PUDs, each unit owner will be allowed to moor only one watercraft.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has approved permits to remove vegetation to allow access to the cеntralized mooring facilities. Although the bay was once protected as a fish-spawning site, it has not been so designated since 1981. The local township approved both projects, and various county engineers and staff were in the process of approving the projects.
In preliminary hearings, the county planning commission heard comments from neighboring residents about the impact on fishing, density, increased boating, shallowness оf the bay, and the negative consequences of traffic on the vegetation and water clarity. The residents’ comments, however, were not scientific, but were merely anecdotal in nature. The planning commission ultimately recommended not issuing permits based on (1) common sense, (2) a 20 percent increase in boat traffic, (3) degradation of water quality, and (4) insufficient water levels.
The two applications were sent to thе board, which held hearings on July 27 and August 10. Neighboring residents once again opposed the two projects, but offered no expert testimony. The board tended to treat the two parcels as one applicаtion, and in so doing, took no direct testimony regarding the Stone Gate North parcel.
At the August 10 meeting, the board approved the preliminary plats and CUPs for both projects, but to each CUP added a condition that nо docks, rafts, buoys, or watercraft mooring areas would be allowed on the lake, because of “concerns for the aquatic ecosystem (i.e. fishing and wildlife) and the shallow depth of the water.”
BECA and Carlson appeal.
ISSUE
Did the county boаrd act in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or without evidentia-ry support, in conditioning the conditional use permits on an absolute prohibition of docks, rafts, buoys, and mooring facilities?
ANALYSIS
When reviewing a county board’s decision on a writ of certiorari,
the court’s inquiry is limited to questioning whether the board had jurisdiction, whether the proceedings were fair and regular, and whether the board’s decision was unreasonable, oppressive, arbitrary, fraudulent, without evidentiary support, or based on an incorrect theory of law.
Radke v. St. Louis County Bd.,
*463
A court gives great deference to a county’s land use decision and will overturn such decisions only when there is no rational basis for them.
See SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada,
When reviewing the denial of a permit, the court must determine if there is a rational basis for the municipality’s decision; this court may not substitute its judgment, if there is a legally sufficient reason for the decision, even if it would have reached a different conclusion.
St. Croix Dev., Inc. v. City of Apple Valley,
In making its decision, a municipality may not “reject expert testimony without adequate supporting reasons.”
SuperAmerica,
In this case, county ordinances mention the pressures that shoreland development here оn areas where “it is people’s desire to reside in an atmosphere where the lakes can be enjoyed.” Douglas County, Minn., Zoning Ordinance, Introduction. The general policies of the ordinances include thаt shoreland areas should be developed in an “orderly” fashion to preserve the quality and environment of surface waters, and to protect certain areas from development. Id., General Land Use Pоlicies 5, 6, 13. The ordinances encourage PUDs, “to enable imaginative and creative land uses which emphasize[ ] flexibility and open space.” Id. § IV.A. The ordinances favor environmental design possibilities that presеrve “health, safety and general welfare” of the community. Id. § IV.A.3. When PUDs are built in residential shoreline districts, the ordinances state that shore recreation facilities, which include docks and mooring areas, should be “cеntralized and located in areas suitable for them.” Id. § IV.D.2.b.(4.)(c.).
The board did not deny the CUPs, but placed significant restrictions prohibiting “docks, rafts, buoys, or water craft mooring areas.” The board’s stated reason for this restriction was “due to concerns for the aquatic ecosystem (i.e. fish and wildlife) and the shallow depth of the water in the proposed area.” While not an outright denial, this amounts to a severe limitation of a right generally reservеd to riparian owners.
See McLafferty v. St.
*464
Aubin,
The board’s decision was based solely on comments, of lake residents and a letter from a DNR Fisheries Supervisor, who simply stated that any development would have an impact on aquatic life. In support of its application, BECA provided permits from the DNR, statements from a surveyor, permit approvals, township approval, and an informal еnvironmental assessment worksheet prepared by a firm hired by BECA. The board’s reasons for prohibiting any docks, buoys, or rafts are vague, based solely on unscientific concerns rather than factual data, and are insuffiсient to support the board’s decisions.
See C.R. Invs.,
BECA has complied with the requirements of the ordinances, and these ordinances contemplate the establishment of central docking facilities as planned by BECA. The deсlared bases for the condition are vague and overbroad; any type of development will have an impact on the aquatic environment, whereas the depth of the bay, which is not in the record, is not direсtly related to public safety, health, and welfare.
DECISION
Because there is no basis in the record to support the county’s decision regarding Stone Gate North, we reverse the board’s imposition of the condition оf no docks, rafts, buoys, or mooring facilities and direct the issuance of the CUP and plat approval. We are not required to remand where a zoning authority’s decision is arbitrary because it is unsupported by legally sufficient reasons.
Northern States Power Co. v. Blue Earth County,
Although evidence was presented to challenge issuance of a CUP for Stone Gate, that evidence was insufficient to support the board’s total prohibition of any docks, rafts, buoys, or mooring fаcilities. We direct the board to consider how many slips are compatible with public health, safety and welfare, bearing in mind that some number of slips must be made available for the use by Stone Gate residents. At the boаrd’s discretion, it may rely on the record before it or re-open the record for the limited purpose of determining the number of slips appropriate for the centralized docking facility at Stone Gate.
Reversed and remanded.