Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. James Andre <br />September 22, 1987 <br />Page 2 <br />The case of Curtis Oil V. City of North Branch, 364 NW2d <br />880, (Minn. App. 1985), also involved the denial by a <br />city council of an application for rezoning and issuance <br />of a conditional use permit. In ruling that the council <br />acted arbitrarily, the court cited Honn with approval for <br />the conclusion that city councils and zoning boards must, <br />at a minimum, have the reasons for their decisions <br />recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a <br />conclusory fashion. By failing to do so, the <br />municipality runs the risk of not having its decision <br />sustained. The court went on to state: <br />North Branch did not provide the minimal <br />reasons required by the Supreme Court. By <br />doing so, it chose to run the risk of not <br />having its decision sustained. Any findings <br />made at this late date would merely be <br />rationalization of the council's previous <br />action. Sanctioning any such procedure would <br />be unfair to respondent and "runs the risk <br />inherent in any opportunity to rationalize or <br />justify what one has done before". <br />In general, a party challenging an ac;.ion by a city <br />council bears the burden of proving that the action was, <br />in the case of zoning and related matters, unreasonable. <br />However, if the city council fails to state reasons for <br />its actions, the action is deemed to be arbitrary and <br />capricious unless the city can establish that it had a <br />legally sufficient basis for its action. In other words, <br />by failing to state reasons for its decision, the council <br />runs a greater risk that its decision will not be <br />sustained by the Court. This rule has been applied in <br />rezoning cases as well as variance and conditional use <br />permit cases. <br />I was also requested to check the minutes of the Council <br />meeting at which Mr. Kehr's application was denied to <br />determine whether the action was taken in one or two <br />motions. The minutes of the April 8, 1985, meeting show <br />that a single motion was made, seconded and passed to <br />deny the request for rezoning, special use <br />ment permit for <br />planned unit development, , preliminary plat and variance. <br />If you have any further questions relating to these <br />matters, please feel free to give me a call. <br />Very truly yours, <br />Charles L. LeFevere <br />CLL:rsr <br />Enclosure: <br />