Hiebert Greenhouses of Minn. v. City of Mountain Lake

1

Hiebert Greenhouses of Minnesota, Inc., et al., Relators, v. City of Mountain Lake, Respondent.

No. A23-1870

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

July 15, 2024

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

City of Mountain Lake File No. Resolution #29-23

Joseph A. Gangi, Farrish Johnson Law Office, Mankato, Minnesota (for relators)

Maryellen Suhrhoff, Muske, Muske & Suhrhoff, Ltd. Windom, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Harris, Judge; and Reilly, Judge.

Reilly, Judge ^[*]

In this certiorari appeal from a city's nuisance abatement decision, relators raise a number of statutory, constitutional, and evidentiary issues with the city's decision to declare their property a public nuisance. They contend that: (1) the property cannot be a nuisance because it is an agricultural operation; (2) they are not required to register the vehicles on the property because they are implements of husbandry, or in the alternative, because the ordinance regulating unregistered and inoperable vehicles is overbroad and arbitrary; (3) the procedure employed by the city was constitutionally deficient; and (4) the evidence does not support the city's nuisance finding.

We affirm.

FACTS

This is a case about an eleven-acre, rural property ("the greenhouse property") owned by relators Paul Christianson and Hiebert Greenhouses of Minnesota, Inc. that respondent City of Mountain Lake has deemed a public nuisance. In 1991, before the property's 2001 annexation into respondent City of Mountain Lake, the Cottonwood County Board of Adjustment granted a variance to Hiebert Greenhouses, affording a reduction in the front-yard setback requirements provided that Hiebert Greenhouses "[c]reate a gravel parking area for trucks and/or cars on the south side." The variance also required that the remaining areas "visible to passerby traffic should be seeded with grass and maintained on a regular basis similar to residential property." In 2015, the Minnesota Secretary of State administratively dissolved Hiebert Greenhouses of Minnesota, Inc., and the secretary of state's certified records show that the business is inactive.

By April 2019 the greenhouse property had fallen, in the eyes of the city, into a state of disrepair. See City of Mountain Lake v. Hiebert Greenhouses of Minnesota, Inc., No A19-2002, 2020 WL 4432629, at *1 (Minn.App. Aug. 3, 2020) (Hiebert I). Certain buildings on the property, according to the city, had become dilapidated and seedling trees had begun to grow inside the buildings. Id. The city passed a resolution pursuant to the hazardous-building statutes, Minn. Stat. §§ 463.15-.261 (2018), requiring that the buildings either be razed or repaired. Id. We reversed the city's resolution on appeal based on its failure to specifically identify repairs as required by the hazardous building statutes. Id. at *2 (citing Minn. Stat. § 463.17, subd. 1).

On September 15, 2023, the city again reached out to relators to address problems with the greenhouse property. The Mountain Lake Chief of Police sent Christianson a letter explaining that the city's police department had discovered "various [c]ity [c]ode violations" that were a "concern for public health and safety." The letter specified:

City Code states that all vehicles on properties within the city limits shall be currently licensed and in running order (operable condition). Each vehicle stored on the property needs to be parked on a pad consisting of gravel, cement, or tar. Vehicles cannot be parked on the grass or in the yard. These items cannot be relocated on the property or covered with tarps or blankets, but must be disposed of properly. In addition, there is rank growth of weeds and other vegetation-trees and shrubs growing wild and through the buildings and not being maintained.

The letter then explained that Christianson was entitled to request a hearing before the Mountain Lake Nuisance Board if he disagreed with the violation. And it notified Christianson that he had ten days from the date of service to comply by "removing the items, licensing all motor vehicles and ensuring the vehicles are in operable condition, or removing those vehicles from the property," or "to request a hearing before the Mountain Lake Nuisance Board." Attached to the letter was evidence collected as a result of the investigation including vehicle registrations and images taken at the subject property.

Relators, through counsel, timely requested a hearing before the Mountain Lake Nuisance Board. The city acknowledged its receipt of the hearing request and informed Christianson that he may appear for the hearing at City Hall on October 16, 2023. Christianson did not attend the hearing, and so the city continued the hearing for November 6.

The city attorney sent Christianson a letter by certified mail on October 18, 2023, notifying him that the hearing had been continued until November 6, 2023, and specifying the provisions of the city code the greenhouse property was alleged to be in violation of. The post office notified Christianson on October 20 and 25 that he had been sent a certified letter and again on November 4. Christianson received the notices from the post office, but he did not go to the post office to retrieve the certified letter.

On November 6, 2023, the city council held the hearing and Christianson attended. When Christianson arrived at the hearing, he told the council that he was unprepared as he had not been notified about the hearing. Christianson asked whether the hearing would be continued or whether he should try to muddle through. The hearing went forward.

At the hearing, the city council heard testimony from the police chief about the vehicles and the rank growth, and the city council reviewed the same images provided to Hiebert's attorney in a September 6 letter. The city also explored whether the greenhouse was in operation. After the hearing, the city council adopted Resolution #29-23, finding relators' property a public nuisance. The city council found that the last time the property was used "for [the] production of plants for commerce was 2014." As to the vehicles, the city council found that the photos and vehicle records showed that the vehicles were either unregistered or inoperable. And it found that rank growth filled the property. The city council specifically referenced the photos and documents collected by law enforcement, as well as the evidence of trespasser calls and of an animal trap on the property.

Relators now appeal by writ of certiorari.

DECISION

Relators appeal from City of Mountain Lake Resolution #29-23, which requires relators to bring their property into compliance by abating certain public nuisances by removing rank growth and by removing or registering inoperable and unregistered vehicles on the property. Since this is an appeal of a quasi-judicial decision, this court's review is inherently limited, and the decision enjoys a presumption of correctness. See Rostamkhani v. City of St. Paul, 645 N.W.2d 479, 483 (Minn.App. 2002). Statute provides the grounds for reversal or modification, allowing such remedies,

if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are:

(a) in violation of constitutional provisions; or

(b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or

(c) made upon unlawful procedure; or

(d) affected by other error of law; or

(e) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or

(f) arbitrary or capricious.

Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2022). Relator raises a number of statutory, evidentiary, and constitutional arguments. We address each category of argument in turn.

I. No statute or ordinance exempts relators from complying with the city's resolution.

a. The greenhouse is not an agricultural operation exempt from nuisance laws under Minn. Stat. § 561.19 (2022).

Relators argue that because their greenhouse on the property is an agricultural operation, it is exempt from nuisance laws. "Agricultural operation[s]" are definitionally not a public nuisance, nor may they become public nuisances after two years from their established date of operation, so long as the operation is "located in an agriculturally zoned area, complies with the provisions of all applicable federal, state, or county laws, regulations, rules, and ordinances" and permits, and operated consistently with "generally accepted agricultural practices." Minn. Stat. § 561.19, subd. 2(a). The threshold determination is therefore whether Hiebert Greenhouses runs an agricultural operation covered by this statute. The city concluded that it was not, and if that determination is supported by the entire record, its determination must stand. See Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Dep't, 783 N.W.2d 182, 189 (Minn.App. 2010).

The statute defines an "agricultural operation" as "a facility and its appurtenances for the production of crops, livestock, poultry, dairy products or poultry products, but not a facility primarily engaged in processing agricultural products." Minn. Stat. § 561.19, subd 1(a). The record supports the conclusion that relators' property falls outside this definition. Hiebert's certified business records show that the greenhouse operation was dissolved in June 2015. Christianson and the city council discussed the expense of "get[ting] the business going again" at the hearing, but Christianson offered no solutions or timeframe. The only record evidence that the greenhouse property was producing crops comes from Christianson's statements at the hearing that he had registered a crop of mulberry trees with the ...