09-20-2018 Council and Advisory Boards Joint Meeting Packet

Home Search

as to issues that were raised and considered before the municipal body at the time it made its decision. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. 1981). 9. If there is not an adequate record on review, the burden is on the municipality to prove that it acted in a reasonable manner. 10 When there is an adequate record, the court will not consider an issue on review that was not properly raised before a local zoning authority. Big Lake Ass'n. v. St Louis County Planning, Comm., 761 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. 2009). C. The Record in Reference to the Standard of Review Zoning cases state that the same standard of review is followed in any zoning matter. The standard is one of reasonableness. The manner in which reasonableness is measured may be stated somewhat differently depending upon the circumstances and the action being reviewed. 1. When looking at a quasi-judicial act, such as a decision on a conditional use permit application, the decision of a municipal body is "reasonable" when it is based upon legally sufficient reasons that have some support in the record. 2. In the area of legislative actions, such as when•a municipality adopts or amends a zoning ordinance, `reasonableness" is measured by the `rational basis" test. A zoning decision deemed legislative in nature will be upheld unless opponents prove that the classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. State, by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 1978). 3. In cases involving variances, the courts have stated that reasonableness is measured by the standards set out in the ordinances. Courts say that a municipality's variance decision will not be invalidated if the municipality "acted in good faith and within the broad discretion afforded it by statutes and ordinances" and its stated reasons are legally sufficient and with a factual basis Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. App. 1995); VanLandSchoott v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d. 4. In each instance the Court will review the action being challenged in reference to the record created by the City. D. Findings as Part of the Record 1. Findings of Fact. a. Findings of fact are necessary as part of a peiunt denial. They should be done when a peihiit is granted. They are desirable to have as part of the record for any decision made by a body given authority in land use matters. 28