My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-21-91 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1991
>
05-21-91 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 6:20:53 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:19:11 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
(2) if a proposed plat complies with the appropriate <br />development standards, denial of the plat approval <br />is arbitrary as a matter of law. <br />(3) The time for challenging a public use dedication <br />fee requirement is prior to final plat approval. <br />III. Burden of Proof. Normally, the burden of proof is on the <br />party challenging the City Council's action to show that the City <br />Council acted unreasonably. If the action being challenged is <br />legislative in nature, there is a heavy burden on the challenger. <br />If the action being challenged is quasi-judicial in nature, there <br />is a lighter burden on the challenger. <br />(A) A total lack of contemporaneous findings setting forth <br />the City's reasons for its action indicates prima facie <br />arbitrariness on the part of.the City Council. <br />(B) Therefore the burden of proof shifts to the City to <br />support its action. <br />(C) The presumption of arbitrariness can be overcome by <br />evidence admitted at trial indicating a rational basis <br />for the City Council's decision. <br />(D) The City must show at least one legally sufficient reason <br />for its action. A legally sufficient reason is one which <br />is supported by facts. <br />C\J\DEV-REC2.OUT <br />N <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.