Laserfiche WebLink
(3) <br /> <br />(4) <br /> <br />(s) <br /> <br />affected by approval of this subdivision by the City <br />Council, nor would his salary have been affected by <br />disapproval of the prelimihary plat. <br />The number of offio~als ~aking the decision who are. <br />interes2e~; the only member of the City Council who to <br />the best of my knowledge ~ad a potential conflict of <br />interest 'in making this !decision was Councilmember <br />'~ardin. ' <br /> <br /> The ne~d, if any, to.havelintereste~ persons make ~he <br /> ~ecision. There was no nee~ for Councilmember Hardin to <br /> take part in the prelimi~ary plat decision, as the <br /> remaining four members of t~e City Council were qualified <br /> to vote on this issue. Cou~cilmember Hardin did abstain <br /> on the vote for final plat a~proval of AmBer Ridge, which <br /> action was unanimously approved by the other four <br /> councilmembers. <br /> <br />The other mea~s available, Sfany, for an opportunity to <br />review th~ ~ecision. The relevant State statute and City <br />Code provisions required a Ifull public hearing prior to <br /> <br /> preliminary plat approval, i The public hearing was held <br /> by the Planning commission ~nd the public was given ample <br /> opportunity for input regarding the subdivision Revisw <br /> of the City Council's decigion was available ~y appeal <br /> to the District Court and:to the Minnesota Court of <br /> Appeals. I ~ <br /> I <br />Based upon all of the above cited factors, it is my opinion tha{ <br />Councilmember Hardin was not legally disqualified because of a <br />conflict of 'interest to vote on the lapproval of the Amber Ridge <br />preliminary plat. I base this opinioD on four crucial factors: <br /> I <br /> (1) Councilmember Hardin appear~ to have had no or arguably <br /> very minimal pecuniary inSerest in seeing that the <br /> preliminary plat approval w~s granted; <br /> <br />(2) The City Council may not 1~ <br /> approval when a developer <br /> Subdivision Code relating <br /> Amber Ridge developer had <br /> City Code; <br /> <br />(3) Councilmember Hardin's vote <br /> the action taken; and <br /> <br />(4) <br /> <br />~gally deny preliminary plat <br /> complies with the City's <br />thereto and it appears the <br />'easonably complied with the <br /> <br />was not the decidihg vote in <br /> <br />Any person aggrieved by the ICtty council s action on the <br />preliminary plat approval h~d ample opportunity to have <br />this decision reviewed by ~he District Court and the <br />Minnesota Court of Appeals. <br /> <br /> <br />