2009-10-06 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

evidence or secret reports that have the effect of denying the rebuttal evidence and testimony. Pagel20fl7 person involved a fair opportunity to proffer Arden H. Rathkopf et aI., Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning and Planning ~ 32.13 (4th ed. 2009). While Minnesota appellate courts have not specifically addressed what constitutes unfairness with respect to the manner in which zoning proceedings are handled, the Court is provided with the following guidance: With respect to adjudicative or quasi-judicial zoning action [...] procedural due process generally prohibits bias or conflict of interest on the part of zoning officials involved in the decision process [...] Concern for the impartial exercise of quasi-judicial authority, in appearance as well as fact, requires that the decision-maker disqualify themselves where bias or conflicts of interest can be shown. [...] Generally, conflict of interest or bias affecting the appearance of impartiality in zoning proceedings can be shown by: [...] (2) partiality or prejudice stemming from associational ties, familiar relationships, friendships, employment or previous business dealings or conduct during the proceeding, or (3) prejudgment of the issues, which is usually revealed by pre-hearing statements. [...] To show an invalidating bias in zoning cases, courts generally have required such statements be linked with advocacy of a position in the particular case in question, as demonstrated by hearing conduct or by the course of proceedings that makes plainly evident the "closed mind" of the zoning decision maker. [d. at ~~ 32.14 and 32.18. This language was quoted in the City Attorney's own internal memorandum which was [4] forwarded to all Council Members. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff is not limited to what the City identified as its "official record" for purposes of proving its claims. As stated in the Court's October 10, 2008 Summary Judgment Order, Plaintiff demonstrated that the official record was incomplete and Plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to supplement the record by way of trial. A number of critical communications that should have been included in the "official record" were not submitted for inclusion, especially the email communication from Goodman to the other members of the Zoning and Planning Committee as well as Goodman's email communications in response to her constituents voicing her stated position. The absence of such critical communications is troubling in a situation where Plaintiff was entitled to a public hearing that was to be conductcd with full and open disclosures on the record and in a fair and meaningful manner. [5] The timeline of events and communications, which Plaintiff established at trial and which the Court now incorporates in its Findings of Fact, demonstrates that Goodman took a position in opposition and exhibited a closed mind with regard to Plaintiff's proposed project prior to hearing Plaintiff's appeal at the September 15,2004 Zoning and Planning Committee meeting and the September 24, 2004 meeting of the full City Council. The timeline of events and communications further demonstrates that Goodman adopted an advocacy role in opposition to Plaintiff's proposed project well before she discharged her quasi-judicial duties. She was clearly involved in an effort not only to assist to organize and mobilize neighborhood opposition to the project, but also to sway the opinions of her fellow council members. Such actions were improper and impermissible for someone acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Furthermore, trial testimony (most notably that of then-Council President Johnson) established that, while aldermanic courtesy is not http://www.minnlawyer.com/userfiles/pdllOrder%20(Final).htrn 9/17/2009