03/10/2021 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

5 b. Substantive due process requires an egregious set of facts to support a claim. It has been said that in order to be found egregious so as to call into question substantive due process, there must be something like a decision based on a coin flip. Lemke v. Cass County, 846 F.2d 469 (8th Cir. 1987). 4. The governmental process must be fair. a. This is referred to as procedural due process. b. Fairness does not include a right to cross-examine witnesses opposed to a particular permit application. Nor does it include anything resembling a judicial hearing. c. Fairness, in the context of zoning matters, equals notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Barton Contracting Co. v. City of Afton, 268 N.W. 2d 712(Minn. 1978). It is enough that the permit applicant had notice of the hearing and an opportunity to testify, introduce evidence and otherwise present his viewpoint. Axelson v. Goodhue County Board of Commissioners, 2015 WL 1514150 (Minn. App. 2015). d. Fairness also requires a decision maker open to hearing the facts and making permit decisions based on those facts. In other words, a decision maker who has not prejudged the matter before it has been presented to him. If, prior to the hearing being held, a decision maker takes a position in opposition to a permit request, and/or adopts an advocacy position before any hearing is held, there is a likelihood that a Court will say that is evidence of an arbitrary and capricious decision. See Continental Properties Group v. City of Minneapolis, 2011 WL 1642510 (Minn. App. 2011). e. The right to due process does not require advance production of all written materials prepared or received by the municipality in connection with a hearing. Claims that advance copies of all written materials, or all potential evidence, must be provided to an applicant in advance of a hearing have been uniformly rejected. See Barton, Axelson. B. State Law limits the exercise of local zoning powers. 1. The Conflicts Doctrine. a. A municipality may not enact local regulations that conflict with State law. When it does so, the local ordinance is invalid.