Laserfiche WebLink
33 <br />decision should be made. The most appropriate way to do this is to record the <br />proceedings. <br /> <br />a. All implements used for the recording should be checked to insure proper <br />operation before each use. Items powered by batteries should be checked to <br />insure the batteries are operable. <br /> <br />3. Make Findings of Fact. <br /> <br />a. Findings should reference facts from the record that justify the answer to the <br />specific question referenced in the findings. It is the “why” of the answer to the <br />specific finding. As in “ we answer this question yes/no because of the following <br />facts.” <br /> <br />4. Make a motion that encompasses in a very specific and exact manner what the City <br />is doing. <br /> <br />a. This includes insuring that all conditions that attach to the permit are identified. <br /> <br />b. Typically a motion is made by a member asking the chair for the floor to be <br />allowed to make a motion. The chair then recognizes the member; the member <br />states the motion; and another member then seconds the motion. The chair <br />should then repeat the motion for the record and invite discussion. The motion <br />may be fine tuned through this discussion, which may call for an amendment, a <br />second to the amendment, and the repeat of the amended motion again. At the <br />conclusion of any discussion the chair will call for a vote on the motion. <br /> <br />VI. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ZONING ACTIONS <br />A. General Principles <br />1. The standard of judicial review in all zoning matters is whether the zoning <br />authority’s action was reasonable. Honn. v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 408 <br />(Minn. 1981). What this means in each circumstance differs slightly. <br /> <br />2. Great deference is given to the decisions of municipalities in zoning matter. Court’s <br />say that the role of the judiciary is “limited and sparingly invoked.” <br /> <br />3. The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it is not the province of the <br />court to substitute its judgment for that of the municipality, but merely to determine <br />whether the body was within its jurisdiction, was not mistaken as to the applicable <br />law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively or unreasonably, and to determine