PL PACKET 11202001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11/14/01 WED 15:53 FAX 6123402643 004 Clay Montella, et al.,Relators,vs. City of Ottertail,Respondent. C9-01-593, Court of App.. Page 3 of 7 and that the City of Ottertail should recognize this request. The city council determined that Brewster's was not a restaurant and, therefore, could not be issued a liquor license and orally denied relators' request for a liquor-license application. ISSUES 1. Was the city council decision to deny relator's .request for a liquor-license application unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or without evidence to support it? 2. Did the city council make an error of law when it determined that Brewster's is not a restaurant? ANALYSIS I. A city council's decision may be modified or reversed if the city violated constitutional provisions, exceeded its statutory authority, made its decision based on unlawful procedure, acted • arbitrarily or capriciously, made an error of law, or lacked substantial evidence in view of the entire record submitted. Our review is confined to the record before the city council at the time it made its decision. In re License of West Side Pawn, 587 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Minn. App. 1998) (citing Minn. Stat. § 14.68-.69 (1996)). The party seeldng reversal has the burden of demonstrating error. See Nevels v. State, Dept of Human Servs., 590 N.W.2d 798, 800 (Minn. App. 1999) (citing Minn. Stat. § 14.69(d), (e) (1998)). Relators argue that the city council's decision to deny them a liquor-license application was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious because the council (1) acted on their oral application without providing a written application forml l]; (2) proceeded with the hearing without locating their original conditional-use permit, which they contend shows that they were operating a restaurant; and (3) concluded that the business was not a restaurant • without proper investigation. http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0109/c901593.htm 11/14/2001