Agenda Packets - 1996/06/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

POPHAM HAIK ACTION TIPS Ho 1,1g ail"k' uct Public Hearings Land nd Use Applications pp Ions v ktzc —Karen R Cole,Esq. e all public hearin s are made. Z Thomas J.Radio,Esq. g he matter of fairness." Kletschka v. Count t offer notice is provided recording system should be sensitiv v . e for of Le Sueur, 277 N.W.2d 404, 405 ring on land use applica- enough to pick up the voices of audi- (Minn. 1979).The City maywant to con- `°d ns. 'tate statutes and the City's ordi- ence members who testify, as well as sider these procedures fora raiser s nances must be consulted to determine those present at the council table. All and other expert witnesses, or in the notice requirements for each type of tape recordings should be preserved for instances where the credibility of an land use approval. The City should at least two years and preferably longer. important witness is especially im r- always err on the side of giving greater If a cable television company broadcasts tant. In addition, the City should P ve notice,if there is any question. Make a Clear Record. the meetings, the City should make those procedures special consideration if arrangements to obtain and preserve they are requested by the applicant. copies of the tapes, at least for contested In conducting public hearings, city land use applications. A court is more Allow Questioning of Witnesses. - 1 officials should be mindful that the pub- likely to grant "summary judgment" Even if the City decides that formal 1 lic hearing record may be carefully scru- based on the record before the City cross-examination is not necessary, it tinized by a judge, if the City's decision– instead of requiring a lengthy and may want to allow informal questioning either for or against a development– is expensive discovery and a trial if a ver- of witnesses. Such questioning can be i challenged in court. A few procedures batim transcript is available. The effort directed to the City Council or planning that will assure that the record is com- and expense needed to assure that an commission if desirable to keep the pro- plete should be part of the City's rou- accurate record is kept may pay for itself ceedings orderly. Allowing this kind of tine. The mayor or planning many times over. commission chair should assure that informal questioning may allow the speakers give their names and addresses Be Careful What You Say. issues to be better ventilated. In addi- tion, the pat does ty for the record before speaking for the City officials should be conscious that not be abler otco plainnthatot rtheilCit wll 1 y < first time. All documents relied on dur- their words may be cited by either the stood in the way of efforts torobe or ing the hearings should be marked as applicant or by opponents to a proposal understand the o osin P PP $pointof view. • exhibits (just like in court proceedings) in an attempt to prove to a court that ` V3 and should be kept by the City until a the procedures adopted by the city were Consider the Need for Independent final decision is made, and the time for somehow inadequate. Ill-considered Depending on the size and sensitivity ies. a` n NI appeal has run. Exhibits — whether words may be the basis for a judge's of the proposed development, thea P li- ` '�J generated by the applicants,city staff, or decision! City officials should ask them- cant may submit the testimony or \ citizens — may be an important part of selves before speaking, " Would Would I say this reports of experts—such as traffic engi- the record and must be available for if a judge were sitting in the city council neers, and land use or environmental review by a court, if necessary. ight:" Because, in effect, cases, e Z the jambersudge may be. should consultants.considerInsuch retaining itsthown Transcribe or Tape Your Hearings. The City must assure that a complete Consider Having Witnesses Be experts to critique the applicant's work Eand perhaps to prepare independent transcript of the public hearings can be Sworn Under Oath. work on behalf of the City. At a mini- prepared, if needed, for court review. There is generally no requirement mum, the City should assure that its \.1 Hiring a court reporter to attend the that witnesses at public hearings be own staff critiques the applicant's hearing results in a very accurate record sworn under oath, or be subject to for- reports. In the absence of any indepen- of the hearing but is expensive.The City mal cross-examination (as in court). Our dent analysis, the only evidence in the QJ \I:\ may wish to consider hiring a court Supreme Court has said, however, that record may be that submitted by the reporter in cases that are contentious there may be times when testimony "is applicant. That will pose no problem where the risk of subsequent litigation is so critically important that the oath and where the applicant's work and conclu- } high. In all other cases, the City should opportunity for cross-examination are sions are well-founded and where the ki') assure that complete tape recordings of to be preferred, if not required, as a City supports the proposal. In other ©I 995 Popham,Haik,Schnobrich&Kaufman,Ltd.All rights reserved. continued on back side