Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

RELEVANT LINKS: SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v City of Little Canada, 539 NW 2d 264 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). Swanson v City of Bloomington, 421 NW 2d 307 (Minn. 1988). Larson v Washington County, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. Ct. App 1986). See also LMC Information Memos, Taking the Mystery Out of Findings of Fact. and, Findings of Fact: Elected Officials as Policymakers. Zylka v. City of Crystal, 167 N.W.2d 45, (Minn. 1969). See Sections V -3 -c, conditional use permits and V -3 -d, requests for variances from the zoning ordinance, for more information on the standards of review for conditional use permits and variances. Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee, 226 N.W.2d 306 (Minn. 1975). Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee, 226 N.W.2d 306 (Minn. 1975). Findings of fact are also essential to the zoning process, because they enable a reviewing court to sustain a city's zoning decisions. When a land use decision is challenged in court, the standard of review used by the court is very limited. The city's decision will be upheld if the findings of fact demonstrate a rational and legally sufficient basis for the decision that is not arbitrary or capricious. Findings of fact should state all of the relevant facts the city considered in making its decision on the zoning application. A fact is relevant if it proves or disproves that the application meets the legal standards of the city ordinance and state law for granting the zoning request. For example, applications for conditional use permits and variances are all subject to particular standards that are or should have been spelled out in city ordinances, or have been defined by state law or court decision. In evaluating any particular zoning request, the reviewing body should apply the relevant facts to the particular standards that govern the specific type of decisions being made. The basis for reviewing specific types of zoning applications is discussed more extensively later in this memo. a) Neighborhood opposition Certain zoning applications may generate vocal public opposition. Frequently, cities struggle with handling vocal neighborhood opposition in their findings of fact. However, general statements of public opposition should not be a finding of fact listed as a basis for denying a zoning application. Nor should the official record intimate that public opposition is the underlying basis for the city's findings of fact. If a zoning application meets the requirements of the ordinance, it must be granted, despite the disapproval of the neighbors. However, this does not mean that all statements of the public must be disregarded. A significant part of the zoning process is generally the public hearing mandated by the Municipal Planning Act. The Municipal Planning Act requires that all parties interested in an application, including the applicant and neighbors, be granted an opportunity to speak and present their views on the application. While general statements of opposition may not be used as a finding of fact, statements made by the public that are concrete and factual relating to the public welfare are acceptable findings. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/10/2012 Zoning Guide for Cities Page 28