Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />is <br /> <br /> <br />uses: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />or use <br />to meet problems <br />though generally compatible the basic use c <br />of a particular not be permitted to be located as <br />a lnatter of right in a particular area zone because <br />hazards inherent in the use itselfor because of special prob- <br />lems which its proposed location may present. 35 <br /> <br />Courts in Minnesota have been very deferential toward municipal decisions <br /> <br />in land use issues: "[t]he court's authority to interfere in the management ofmu- <br /> <br />nicipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.,,36 "[EJxcept in <br /> <br />those rare cases in which the city's decision has no rational basis, "it is the duty of <br /> <br />the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord appropriate deference to civil <br /> <br />authorities in the performance of their duties.,,3! "The standard of review is the <br /> <br />same for all zoning matters, namely, whether the zoning authority's action was <br /> <br />reasonable.... Is there a 'reasonable basis' for the decision? or is the decision <br /> <br />3.+ AkShane v. Ci(v olF ariballlt, 292 N.\V .2d 253.257 (Minn. 1980) (quoting <br />COLin!.v of Pine v. State. Deparmzent ofNarural Resources. 280 N.W.2d 625,630 <br />Uvfinn. 1979). <br />35 Amoco Oil Co. v. Cil.v ofAIinneapolis. 395 N.\V.2d 115, 117 (Minn. App. 1986) <br />(citation omitted). <br />36 Sl,vanson v. City ofBloomingwll. 421 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Minn. 1988) (quoting <br />While Bear Docking and Storage. Inc. v. Cftv of White Bear Lake. 324 "N.W.2d <br />17' 17::"'1' 198;)' <br />. "t, I.J (l Y mn. .... ). <br />.,- Ie!. (quoting TV/zile Bear Docking, 324 :-J.W.2d at 176). <br /> <br />-f <br />