*1
739
рetition
we
a
may
had denied
for further
nothing
have
to do with the
ago.
year
review Boroos
a
This
certainly
merits and
nothing
prompts us to comment on the effect
aof
any
do with
view the merits
taken
a
petition
denial
a
for further
review.
majority
Court,
there were not
thought
members
the Court who
[three]
any
“Review of
decision of the
Brown,
the сase should be heard.”
344
Appeals
discretionary
Court
at
U.S.
time for whatever undisclosed discretionary consider matter. Our jurisdic is not unlikе the
review Court, Supreme United States
where that court has often said interpreted
denial of certiorari cannot be as
an adjudication
expression
opinion
or
on
Allen,
the merits of the case.
CLUB,
Brown v.
WHITE BEAR ROD AND GUN
443, 497,
397, 441,
Petitioner,
Relator,
U.S.
S.Ct.
(1953);
Maryland
L.Ed. 469
State
Show,
Baltimore Radio
338 U.S.
917-
HUGO,
252, 254-55,
Respondent.
(1950)
CITY OF
S.Ct.
Rule such importance as the statewide involved, grants the issue either petition
denies the for further review.9 It grant.
takes three (Infrequent- votes for a
ly, accepting petition after for what at reasons, time seemed sufficient appeal improvidently granted
dismiss as meeting criteria.)
for not our review temptation significance
The to read into of petition denial for further review is give
best resisted. not does appeals
court of decision more or less
precedential weight appeals than a court of sought.
decision from which no review that,
The denial “means one rea- disclosed,
son or another which is seldоm infrequently conflicting reasons Currently petitions average, there are re- review. On an further receive further appeals days view about sions, petitions 20% of deci- acts within court on for review receives, supreme and the court on an filing in this from court average, mately petitions Approxi- 50-55 each month. appeals days from the within granted. petitions 25% of the filed are sion. Thus about 5% of decisions *2 Barrett, Paul,
Thomas J. St. for relator. Johnson, Hugo Atty., Charles A. Hugo, respondent.
SIMONETT, Justice. appeals’ ruling reverse the court of that a council lacks to en- application tertain an award a permit operation of a because of the existence a district сourt injunction prohibiting opera- tion. We to the remand council to prepare adequate findings of fact requested decision denying the amendment. May respondent City of petitioner-relator issued to White Rod Bear oper- and Gun Club a ate a club about ½ miles east of built-up portion city. requirement included a that the noise level operation, from the club’s which included shooting, skeet trap not exceed 40 Thereafter, bels at property line. April separate proceeding in a brought by groups two environmental club, against Washington County found District Court that the club’s the Minnesota En- would violate that because of outstanding injunction permanently against club, Aсt and vironmental “the enjoined operation. ap- On had no to consider the Club’s affirmed the district court’s deci- peal, amendment to its sion, permit.” Minnesota Public Interest Research White Bear Rod & Gun *3 Club, Group Bear Rod Gun v. White & Club City Hugo, 49, 377 N.W.2d of (Minn.1977), (Minn. adding, how- Ct.App.1985). N.W.2d ever, that our affirmance was not intended granted gun the club’s preclude gun attempting to the club from clarify further procedures review where might bring oper- remedial action which municipal two body forums —a and a dis- ation into environmen- trict exercising jurisdiction court—are both rights tal act. Id. at 783. aspects particular land use aof gun then struggled
Since club has area. operation much
without
success to make
court,
palatable to the
city
district
I.
council,
neighboring public.
and the
City Hugo
The
raisеs a threshold is-
1980,
May
the district court denied the
sue, namely, whether
prop-
certiorari is the
permanent
club’s
to remove the
procedure
er
for judicial
review of a
because,
injunction
shooting
it
council’s
an
a spe-
amendment to
adversely
quietude
still
would
affect the
permit.
cial use
We conclude certiorari
now,
the area.1 For over a decade
while
lies,
very
but
for a
narrow issue.
firing
club has used its indoor
Certiorari is appropriate to review
range, it has never been able
do
outdoor
quasi-judicial proceedings only where there
because,
trap shooting
apparent-
skeet and
is no appeal and no other adequаte remedy.
ly,
has never been able
to meet
Plunkett v. First National Bank
Aus
40-decibel noise limitation.
tin,
231,
262 Minn.
233 n.
late 1984 the
again
club tried
237 n. 2
While
limitation, resulting
raise the noise level
in
permits
quasi-
decisions on
are
present appeal.
applied
It
to the
judicial,
City
Rapids,
see Honn v.
Coon
City
per-
Council to amend the
(Minn.1981),
City
N.W.2d
mit to
shooting
allow
noise
aat
“reason-
of Hugo argues
inappropriate
certiorari is
level,”
proposed
able
which it
should be 55
462.361,
here because Minn.Stat.
produced
decibels. The
club
evidence
1(1984), provides
adequate remedy
an
in
background
noise
on the
level
district court:
decibels,
already
club’s
45.8
ordinance,
person aggrieved
an
Any
by
to impose
and that
level
40-decibel
rule, regulation, decision or order of a
impossible,
set an
hence
governing body
adjustments
board
unreasonable,
6,1985,
standard. On March
appeals acting pursuant
to sections
following
public hearings
before its
* * *
462.351 to
such
462.364
commission,
planning
city council de-
by
appro-
decision or order reviewed
an
requested permit
nied the
amendment.
* *
priate remedy in the district court
*.
sought judicial
by
review
directly
appeals.
per
certiorari
to the
Judicial review
appeal, reasoning
quoted language.
The court dismissed the
mits comes under this
proceeding
gave
weight
This district court
an
to the
involved
8-
The district court
substantial
day
replеte
expert
trial
with much
acoustical
40-decibel level limitation set out
testimony. The district court found that reme-
observing
Hugo’s special
permit,
this stan-
by
satisfy
dial measures taken
the club would
prevent degra-
designed
dard was
"to
potential
poisoning
earlier concerns about
lead
existing
dation of the
resource of
environmentаl
and that there would be no
threat to
material
quietude
court affirmed
dis-
*.” This
habitat,
impulsive
wildlife
but it found the
noise
opinion.
trict court’s decision without a written
shooting
high.
level from outdoor
was still too
The statute is silent on
“appro-
what is an
purport
does not
grant
priate remedy,”
but
Honn
exclusive
for writs of certiorari
Rapids, supra,
Coon
we mаde clear that
to the
appeals;
section
certiorari ordinarily
longer appropri-
is no
subd. makes clear that the district court
matter,
ate in
any zoning
legisla-
has at least2 concurrent
jurisdic-
quasi-judicial.
tive or
Id. at 416. We said
tion. While we conclude that henceforth
declaratory
judgment
injunction
aggrieved
person should sеek relief first
generally
appropriate,
more
or some-
in the district
judicial economy dic-
mandamus, although
times
adding “there
tates in this instance that we reach the
quasi-judicial proceeding
be a
present-
merits of the
appeal.
ing legal question
to which certiorari still
citing
lends itself.”
Development
Id.
Ram
II.
Shaw,
Co. v.
309 Minn.
*4
hold,
law,
as a matter of
(1976)
110
(involving an
parliamen-
issue of
Hugo City Council’s decision denying the
tary procedure).
It seems to us we have
special
amendment
any
lacks
here,
Ram,
as in
legal procedural
a narrow
findings of fact or
explanation
other
of its
question
certiorari,
which lends itself to
adequate
decision
judicial review.
namely:
Hugo
Did
City
Cоuncil set out
proper legal
decision in
judicial
form for
denying
application,
club’s
review?
city council cryptically listed nine “rea-
sons” as set out below.3 These so-called
lies,
But if certiorari
should it issue
nothing
reasons are
more than a list of the
from the district court
ap
or the court of
council’s sources of information аnd tell a
peals? The
appeals
court of
relied on
reviewing
nothing
court
about how the
Minn.Stat.
(Supp.1985)
3
council
have evaluated or used this
to conclude
“petition
that a
for a writ of
information.4
While the
council was
properly
now
taken to [the
required
prepare
formal findings of
appeals]
court of
rather than the district
fact, was,
minimum,”
“at a
required to
court.”
permit amendment. We hold. To the appeal, On reviews extent the court of has ruled other if record determine the decision is rea- wise, we reverse. legally sonable and based on rea- sufficient exercising jurisdic- There are forums proper sons factual basis. C.R. how the use its Investments, Village Shoreview, Inc. v. land. The Council’s (Minn.1981); see also zoning arises under its ordinance and its Docking Storage, White Bear Inc. v. permits. to issue Lake, White Bear N.W.2d in- district court’s has been (Minn.1982) (council has wide discre- by private sought voked citizens who tion). hand, On the other the district successfully permanent injunc- obtained a applying the criteria of the environmental *5 prohibiting tion a use of the land that rights act, gun considers whether the be in violation of En- would the Minnesota pollute club’s use of the impair land will Rights vironmental Act. quietude, whether there are feasible alter- extent, natives, jurisdiction To some the of the and gun activity whether the overlaps, reasonably two forums but forum is with required neither consistent and promotion health, other.6 Each within its of public safety excludes the acts and sphere appropriate light own and no in paramount there is welfare of the state’s Simply put, conflict. club to the of protection concern for its natural shooting conduct outdoor it must in resources. be 116B.01 § fact, zoning findings ordinance The district makes action, contemporaneously sons noise level in violation of the Minnesota Envi- would, itself, prima arbitrary, Rights will be facie and will sion it be insuf- ronmental Act persuading shooting the bear burden of the ficient to allow the outdoor and shooting court that the facts circumstances before it long so as the still in violation gave legally rise to sufficient reasons the Minnesota Environmental Act. case, posture or revocation.” In the this Nothing opinion city in the coun- the addresses however, on even if we could conduct permits. special cil’s Indeed, to issue use merits, the even review on we would not have special the condition in the 40-decibel findings noncontemporaneous to review. We permit in the district use action, was not at issue only is believe the course to remand al- which instead involved different city the council. parties. though related issues and different Group Minnesota Public Interest Research city requires 7. The ordinance the Club, White Bear Rod & Gun consider: (Minn.1977), this court "[T]he the advice and recommendations of [T]he permit grant has no issue filed, Planning report is and Commission if a pollution, impairment, a variance allows which health, upon proposed the the the effect of the or destruction the environment within morals, general safety, welfare of occu- and meaning c. 116B.” The court lands, existing surrounding pants and an- language applica- on to hold the relied that * * *, ticipated the effect traffic conditions premature, permit tion for a amendment was views the and scenic in on values surrounding the the had no to consider that application, area, pro- and the effect the club should have that Municipal posed Comprehensive use on the court. returned to district Plan.” however, quoted language, Our read in con- Code, 320-7, Zoning c. text, any permit meant that issued for hope review will not be dis- in appellate point on that at system some clearly turbed unless erroneous. equate persistence will right with a to be granted requested my variance. Conceivably, there be situations entirely possible, is view it under the facts seeking where a landowner case, and circumstances of this for the 40- permit may to meet the criteria of be able condition reasonable, decibel to be found other, but, stated, one forum but not as even that condition makes use of pass in both landowner must muster impossible. permit There is evidence case, in forums. In this the landowner has the record that pollution noise can have obtaining been unsuccessful a feasible potentially serious effects, adverse health just both once before court, that can annoyance noise cause council and the district but irrita- regardless level, twice. tion of the decibel noisе loud from the club’s If the city club seeks review of would hurt property All values. of this after by bringing council’s decision remand evidence relevant to the criteria set forth a declaratory judgment action in district city’s regarding grant- ordinance club, suggest assuming ing permits. legislature it has new since last in evidence it was expressly regulation has left the of gun years ago, bring district court 6 also Furthermore, clubs local authorities.1 modify injunc- action to the district court’s again noted, must be as we noted in Min- requirements quietude. nesota Public Group Interest Research proceedings Both could be consolidated for Club, White Bear Rod & Gun trial in parties district court. All interested (Minn.1977), 765-766 that the would then be in court and evidence took the buildings constructed given only need be once. The district court knowing on the site proceedings comply could it could not coordinate perhaps get with the 40-decibel this matter limitation.2 resolved once and for all.
Reversed and remanded.
WAHL, J., specially. concurs
WAHL, (concurring specially). Justice agree
I is useful that it for this court to pathway
indicate through two fo-
rums exercising jurisdiction how
plaintiff gun may I club use its land. am
concerned, however, that in the course of continuing saga, be
encouraged pursue judicial if only noise, adopted by any agency impulsive No by standards state such as made that a shot- * * * limiting levels of noise gun. (1985). Minn. Rules § 7010.0400 atmosphere apply occur in the outdoor shall * * * skeet, trap shooting sports clubs 2. We said White Bear Rod and Gun Club: * * Nothing prohibit *. herein shall a local clearly The evidence that at shows no time government public unit corporation or a began operation since the Gun Club has the power govern- with to makes rules decibel limit been within 40-dba limitation regulating ment of its real from skeet, Further, Perez, permit. Alfonso a noise trap location and or shoot- pollution expert, testified that he informed the ing sports clubs *. applicants hearing Gun Club at the time of the subd. 2a Pollu- before the that there Council (PCA) Agency tion Control has no they comply possibility no could regulate noise emissions from clubs nor do permit. decibel limitation contained in the the noise emission standards that have been at 765-766. PCA, developed by which were used proposal, apply club to arrive at its 55-decibel