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

Home Search

b. Findings of fact should constitute an exercise of the application of the record evidence to the standards set forth in the ordinance. c. Findings of fact should use the applicable decisional standards. d. Findings of fact on specific conditions are necessary when the decision-making authority imposes an unwanted condition on a pellnit applicant. 2. Contemporaneous Findings of Fact. a. Court cases long ago established the rule that there are to be contemporaneous findings of fact and a contemporaneous record created that supports the denial of a permit. Kehr v. City of Roseville, 426 N.W.2d 233 (Minn. App. 1988). b. Requiring contemporaneously made findings is meant to prevent after -the -fact justifications unrelated to the actual reasons for the decision. c. However, as long as the fmdings are prepared within a reasonable amount of time from the zoning decision, the contemporaneous requirement has been deemed to have been met. Findings made two weeks after the hearing and 26 days after the hearing have been held to be contemporaneous. BBY Investors v. City of Maplewood, 467 N.W.2d 631 (Minn App. 1991); R.A. Putnam v. Mendota Heights, 510 N.W.2d 264 (Minn App. 1994). d. It has been noted that where findings a e prepared after a hearing, the absence of a full or verbatim record of the meeting, made either manually or electronically, may result in a decision that the findings are not contemporaneous. Hurrle v. Sherburne County, 594 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. App. 1999). e. There is some small dichotomy between this case law on contemporaneousness and the directive in the 60 Day Rule Minn. Stat. § 15.99, that if a multimember governing body denies the request, it must state the reasons for denial on the record and provide the applicant in writing a statement of the reasons for denial. The statute goes on to state that if the written statement is not adopted at the same time as the denial it must be adopted at the next meeting following the denial of the request but before the expiration of the 60 days (or any extension taken or granted). the Supreme Court has held that a County's failure to comply with these requirements, as long as it's decision was made within 60 days, does not trigger the automatic approval penalty of the statute. Johnson v Cook County, 786 N.W. 2d 291 (Minn 2010); Hans Hagen Homes v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W. 2d 536 (Minn. 2007).