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

Home Search

E What is a fact for purposes of a zoning decision? This may look and sound a little simple or nonsensical. In reality it is an important question. What it raises is the question of what evidence (or what facts) is sufficient to support a land use decision. 1. Questions often arise as to what is sufficient, and what can be relied upon, in making a land use decision. 2. In the land use hearing, the quality of the evidence and testimony does not have to meet the full standards of a judicial hearing. 3. It is the province of the decision maker to weigh the evidence and to detetmine whether it finds particular evidence credible or not. 4. the saying that "neighborhood opposition itself is not enough to justify the denial of a permit" is shorthand for a more nuanced principle. Neighbors can and often do have information pertinent to the decision being made. Concrete information from neighbors can be pertinent and relied upon. Observations concerning personal experiences regarding current conditions capable of being observed by average citizens are the type of information courts say is "concrete" and capable of being relied upon by decision makers. Generalized statements reflecting speculative fears of future occurrences, and statements not within the realm of the person's personal knowledge, are not concrete. They are the type of "neighborhood opposition" that cannot be relied upon For a general discussion on the sufficiency of evidence from neighbors see August v. Chisago County, 868 KW. 2d 741 (Minn. App. 2015); Kotten v. Brown County, 2100 WL 382811 (Minn. App. 2011). 5. Principles to keep in mind. a. Rejection of expert testimony need not be based on expert testimony In a case involving traffic experts and traffic safety issues, the city could reject the expert's testimony and rely upon ` concrete information" presented by neighbors about already existing traffic problems in the area. See SuperAmerica Group, Inc., v. City of Little Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. App. 1995). See also Roselawn Cemetery v. City of Roseville, 689 N.W. 2d 254 (Minn.. App. 2004). Compare these with Scott County Lumber Co , v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. App. 1988), Yang v. Carver County, 660 N.W. 828 (Minn. App. 2003), aiid Magone v Denmark Township, 2003 WL 21524888 (Minn. App. 2003), cases where a permit was denied based upon fear, speculation,. and evidence outside of the realm of personal knowledge of the person presenting it.