Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Iven <br /> <br /> <br />review, a court must not <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />for <br /> <br /> <br />question is not <br /> <br /> <br />was <br /> <br />or <br /> <br /> <br />court agrees, <br /> <br /> <br />it \\'as a rational decision. Because <br /> <br /> <br />the residents of <br /> <br />neighborhood from the potential dangers <br /> <br /> <br />use <br /> <br />threatened was not <br /> <br />reasonable, but also the right decision, the court's duty is <br /> <br />clear. <br /> <br />Applicant's protestations notwithstanding,39the requirement of reasonable- <br /> <br />ness need not be applied to every statement supporting the municipality's decision. <br /> <br />"[A] city's denial of a land use request is not arbitrary when at least one of the rea- <br /> <br />sons givenEor the denial satisfies the rational basis test.,,40 The wisdom of such a <br /> <br />rule should be readily apparent \vhen that one reason given is to protect the public <br /> <br />health, safety and welfare. <br /> <br />B. The burden of proving that a proposed use meets the criteria for a Condi- <br />tional Use Permit falls on the applicant. <br /> <br />Minnesota Statute S 462.3595, Subd.l, requires "a showing by the applicant <br /> <br />that the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied." -! lOne of <br /> <br />38 Sl,vanson. 421 N.W.2d at 311 (quoting While Bear Docking. 324 N .\V.2d at 176 <br />(quoting Honn v. Cil.V ofC06n Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 417( Minn. 1981). <br />39 Appellant's Brief, 9. <br />-+0 Trisko v, Citv of' Waile Park. 566 N.\V.2d 349, 352 (Minn. App. 1997) (quoting <br />St, Croix Dev.. Inc. v. City o.lApple Valle.v. 446 N.W.2d 392.398 (Minn. App. <br />1989), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. L 1989)). <br />-+1:,- -f' S "4.6.'" 3-9-b' 1 7001) <br />LV mn. tat. S' 1.. ) ). SU Q. (- '::"., <br /> <br />I/"\ <br />[I) <br />