Laserfiche WebLink
b. In Carlson v Blue Earth County, 2000 WL 1239734 (Minn. App. 2000) <br />testimony regardingexisting respiratory problems due to existing feedlots, and <br />personal experiences where odor from existing feedlots interfered with <br />neighbors' use and enjoyment of their land justified the permit denial. This was <br />"concrete infoiniation " In addition, neighbors bolstered their own experiences <br />with submitted published academic studies they submitted that addressed <br />possible adverse health risks of high-density hog farming. <br />c. Anderson v Winona County, 2000 WL 1780321 (Minn. App. 2000). This is a <br />case that stands for the proposition that where proponents and opponents of a <br />proposed project submit differing expert reports and opinions, it is for the <br />municipal decision maker to determine which they find more credible. A court <br />will not review the decision making process to determine which expert is more <br />credible. The Roselawn case also stands for the same principle. See Also <br />McDuffee v. Monison County, 2008 WL 2492323 (Minn App 2008) (involving <br />conflicting infoiniation on property values) and Solum v. Houston County, 2008 <br />WL 4224493 (Minn. App. 2008). <br />d. Schwardt v. County of Watonwan, 656 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 2003) stands for the <br />proposition that the municipal decision maker may discount evidence that lacks <br />relevance or credibility <br />e. Kotten v. Brown County, 2011 WL 382811 (Minn. App. 2011) stands for the <br />proposition that personal knowledge of decision makers can be proper evidence <br />to consider as long as it is identified at the hearing so the applicant has an <br />opportunity to respond. In other words, say what you know <br />VI. INSURING THE CREATION OF A GOOD RECORD <br />A. Preparation of the documentary record <br />1. Step One• Review. <br />Every relevant county regulation and plan should be reviewed as part of the <br />evaluation process of the particular permit application. Include pertinent provisions <br />of the Ordinances and plans m the staff report This review helps you identify <br />possible issues that may be raised at a hearing. And that in tum will help guide your <br />infounation gathering process and insure the relevant data is included in the record. <br />2. Step Two: Consult as necessary <br />This may be the case in the context of a technically -oriented application Or it may <br />be that in reading a particular provision of your ordinances for the 57th time, the facts <br />31 <br />