Timothy R. Thornton, Jack Y. Perry, Briggs and Morgan, 2400 IDS Center, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for Respondent)

Bradley C. Rhodes, Aitkin County Attorney, James P. Ratz, Assistant Aitkin County Attorney, Aitkin County Attorney's Office, Courthouse West Annex, Aitkin, MN 56431 (for Appellant)

Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Klaphake,

Judge.

We have seen this case, which involves respondent George Shetka's application for a conditional use permit, before.[1] After a remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Shetka, declaring that the county's denial of his application for a conditional use permit was wrongful, and directing the county to grant Shetka a conditional use permit to expand his mining operations. Appellant Aitkin County now challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment, arguing that we should remand to the county board because the board's proceedings and decision denying the permit were deficient. In the alternative, the county argues the case should be remanded to the district court for an opportunity to augment the record. This court granted the Lake Wilkins Association's motion to file an amicus brief. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

Unless there is a statute that provides otherwise, a party does not have standing to challenge a governmental action unless that party is "aggrieved"--i.e. adversely affected by the action. Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 392 N.W.2d 558, 564 (Minn. App. 1986). In quasi-judicial proceedings, in order to be "aggrieved," the party must not be part of the decisional process. City of St. Paul v. LaClair, 479 N.W.2d 369, 371 (Minn. 1992). A county board's denial of a conditional use permit is a quasi-judicial decision because it requires a county board to determine facts about the nature and effects of the proposed use and then exercise its discretion in determining whether to allow the use. Shetka v. Aitkin County, 541 N.W.2d 349, 352 (Minn.App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Feb. 27, 1996). Thus, because this case involves a quasi-judicial decision--the denial of a conditional use permit--and because the county was part of the decisional process, in that county board made the decision to deny the conditional use permit, the county is not aggrieved by the decision. Therefore, the county does not have standing to challenge the decision. (The county's position has the flavor of the child who murders its parents and then begs for mercy from the court because it is an orphan.)

Because of our resolution of the standing issue, we do not address the other issues raised by the parties and the amicus.

Affirmed.

[ ]¹ See Shetka v. Aitkin Co., 541 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Feb. 27, 1996).