Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />In <br />the Trial -Court, Rekuski argued that: <br />a. <br />The Trial Court should have granted Rekuski's motion <br />for a directed verdict at the close of the City. of <br />Roseville's case -in -chief; at the close of. Reakuski'S <br />case -in -chief; and/or at the close of the trial after <br />the Trial Court had allowed the City of Roseville to <br />reopen its case -in -chief in order to introduce <br />additional evidence and testimony. The Trial Court <br />denied all of Rekuski's motions for a directed verdict's <br />b. <br />The City of Roseville had the burden of proving that <br />its denial of Rekuski's request for a variance was not <br />prima facie arbitrary. The Trial Court did not <br />specifically determine this issue. <br />a. <br />It was reversible error for the Trial Court to infer,: <br />from the packet of materials presented to the. Roseville <br />City Council, the Roseville Council's reasons-for,its . <br />decision to deny Rekuski's request for a variance. The <br />Trial Court did not specifically determine this issue. <br />d. <br />The City of Roseville should be estopped from requiring <br />that Rekuski comply with its setback regulations <br />because the City had engaged in wrongful conduct;. <br />because Rekuski had incurred expenditures unique to the <br />remodeling of his home; and because, a balancing of <br />interests would indicate that the Cit Y's wrongful <br />conduct would cause a serious injustice to Rekuski but <br />the imposition of an estoppel would not unduly damage' <br />the public's interest. The Trial Court, in effect, <br />granted a partial estoppel prohibiting the City from <br />strictly complying with its setback requirements. <br />d. <br />The Roseville City Council's action in denying the <br />request for a variance was unreasonable when judged <br />according to the City's Zoning Regulations and/or when <br />judged according the standards contained in M.S. <br />462.357, Subd. 6(2). The Trial Court determined that <br />the Roseville City Council acted reasonably. <br />5. Issues proposed to be raised on appeRl: <br />a. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion in <br />denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict. <br />b. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion by <br />inferring, from Council agenda materialz, reasons why <br />the Respondent's City Council denied Appellant's <br />request for a variance. <br />C. Whether the Respondent had the burden of proving that <br />it did not act prima facie arbitrary i.z denyinq <br />Appellant's request for a variance. <br />2 <br />