Agenda Packets - 1988/05/16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

not it was b scdaOn reasonable ve te for because v.il! Create traffic problems" informationd wit- denying the However, permit. the hbe. nesses presented at the hearing, cn' %0's written findings demonstrated In summary, the Court's real con- Tthe his means that after hearing all of to the court that their derision should relevantwas tern is that applicants for land use formalfindingsof councilon the concerns sort receive a fair fact as for which thereed adequate factual hearings If he ci based on that testimony. The conca's basis in the record, and not on the cant a fair hearing 2 decision —issuing a 1 an tve by its proes permit, granting a neighborhood oppositic,. it was varianand ce, approving a subdivision, Council or planning commission 3) can shrecords ow that its decisionewsased rezoning property, or whatever —then becomes a matter of applying the members should also refrain from mak- on reasonable conclusion drawn from ing statements or comments either standards in the relevant ordinances and statutes to the facts. at the information presented at that hear. or outside the hearing which suggest ing, the courts will be satisfied. How. In the Swanson case, for example, the council made a formal finding that they have already made up their ever, if the rec:. j before the court minds. If one or more of the members doesn't show that the applicant that the requested subdivision would pull state a position before the received a fair hearing from the city, hearing process is complete, that damlatel cause substantial environmental dam- age. The testimony from the c tyfor- might the court itself will give the applicant suggest to he court that the hearing the opporttadty to be heard. ester, the city planner, and a wildlife biologist supported that finding. The process might have been a sham and Not only will following these proce- that for practical purposes the mem- dures make it quicker and cheaper to witnesses outlined the type of environ- bers had already Lade a decision. On defend the city's position it there is a the other hand, there should be mental damage that each believed would result from the subdivision. no court challenge; it will also put the city problem with a member stating that in a much stronger position to defend he/she is concerned about certain its Under the city's ordinance, the h'kell- hard of environmental damage was decision successfully. W regard - issues, so long as it's dear that his/her less of how the courts view it, if the one of the grounds upon which the council mind is still open. For example, saying city takes these steps to make sure before t':e hearing "I'm concerned could deny a permit. The record also revealed substantial neighborhood that that everyone's views are heard and the development might create traffic that the city has all of the relevant opposition. That opposition alo:me would problems" shouldn't be a problem; information, the result can only be saying "1'm against the development better decision -making. ■ "We saved around $10,000 a year when we went in-house with Alpha -BARS instead Of using the serice bureau." "Our working haeldog in the various city departments has basically been elinwtatetl, along with the report bottlenecks, since we began using the complete Alpha -BARS systems." PARR$, InfryronJ SaQ¢nrc for ,WmfnLlrolws Ralph Taehne, Finance Directo,, oily of prfvr fakq Afiv Kcrl) IT with increasing worklonds and decreasing uprrding bndgrr+ 11.... 1hr pmwr „r A11.1,01AItti inleg sled accounting sofovale for Imp) garmmens Used by outs, tmvru, Villages, and coundcs since 1979. Esrn dic Minnesota League of Clues has telied on Alpha -BARS for yeas Find out why. 711e wflamr nau on AMP Unix ,llinimmpwea 1Bd1aS1uem/36 ,%14runpak; nml 78.Ils Pmoml Campwm end mmpmibla Calf our Maneapolls olGce toufine for mom ulfonumdon. 1-800-342-2345 est. 261 ]Ma.. ❑_C_,4r-5.n• Ias. ,, p.1. AY].1113 1201 cn.J.ul sun. 17 O�IG.q fRsslol BF-9 Sky • Data Systems May 1988 =r� 33