PL PACKET 03212006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 15 • Pelican Lake Prop.Owners A city that does not follow the procedures in its own land use ordinances will Assn v. County of Crow Wing, 1999 WL 618232,C5-98-1549 have its decisions reversed by a court. (Minn.Ct App.Aug.17,1999). Minn.stat.§462.361. District court review is available,but an exhaustion of the remedies provided Stansel!v City of Northfield, by ordinance is first required. A person suing to challenge a city's land use 618 N.W.2d 814(Minn.Ct. actions when the action adversely operates on the person's rights of property App 2000). or bears directly upon the person's personal interest. Specific injuries must be alleged. .Sunrise lake Assn v.Chisago The general standard for review in all land use decisions is whether the County Bd.of Commis,633 council's action was reasonable and rationally based. If the city neglects to N.W.2d 59(Minn Ct App. 2001). state reasons for an action taken on the record,the city's action is presumed BECA of Alexandria LLP v. arbitrary and unreasonable. Similarly, if the record contains no findings by Countv of Douglas LY rel Bd.of the council,the burden of proof shifts to the city to show its actions were Comm'rs,607 N.W.2d 459 reasonable. Findings adopted within a reasonable time are sufficient. For (Minn.Ct.App.2000). example,in complex matters where additional time is required,findings In re Livingood,594 N.W.2d adopted at a subsequent council meeting may be appropriate, if adopted 889(Minn.1999). within the 60-day time period as required by the 60-day rule. Findings must Hurrle v.County of Sherburne, be legally sufficient and factually supported. 594 N W.2d 246,(Minn.Ct. App. 1999). R.A.Putnam &Assocs.v.City • of Mendota Heights,510 N.W.2d 264(Minn.Ct.App. 1994) C.R.Invs.,Inc.v. Village of Shoreview,304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 1981). Honn v.City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409(Minn.1981). Zylka v.City of Crystal,283 Minn. 192, 167 N.W.2d 45 (1969). Minn.Stat.§15.99. Kreuz v.St.Louis County When explicit findings as to why a decision are made,the courts respect the Planning&Zoning Comm'n, broad discretion cities have to make routine municipal decisions and will 1996 WL 469486,C8-96-150 p (Minn Ct App.Aug.20,1996). likely determine the decision is not arbitrary and capricious. 15-36 HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES This chapter last revised 12/15/2004