Quinlivan & Hughes attorney Kenneth Bayliss, a member of the firm’s Government Law Practice Group, successfully represented Le Sueur County in Davis v. Le Sueur County, a dispute relating to denial of a variance to construct a pool and pool shed on a peninsula overlooking a lake. In this hard-fought dispute, the landowner tore down an existing home on the peninsula and sought variances to build a new home, a pool shed, and a pool on the property. All of these were proposed to be built within the setback distance from the lake and would be prominently located on the peninsula. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance for the home, but denied the variance for the pool shed and the pool.
The Court of Appeals decision affirmed the decision of the Board in all respects. One key issue was whether the trial court had erred in remanding the matter to the Board for a more detailed explanation of its decision. The landowner contended the trial court should not have allowed the Board to provide a more detailed explanation of its decision as a result of a remand. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the trial court’s decision to remand was proper. It then analyzed the facts in the record supporting the Board’s decision and affirmed the trial court’s decision. Important to the court was the fact that the Board had visited the property and seen how the proposed development would appear in its surroundings. The decision in Davis v. Le Sueur County was handed down by the court on May 29, 2018.