Laserfiche WebLink
T A. <br />/ . 7^s irrrpc r:*nce of thtse judlcia! detcrmlrxtions is <br />* ♦•jst the Court h»$ recognszed th»t quz*i*judic««l <br />- prcctcdlrsi of t^e city council are ir.fcrrr.e: a'.d <br />5 sophisticated .courtroom pioctJure oc« not have <br />5 - to be followed. Rather, the council v/il. only heve <br />r * ' 10 insure that a party "1$ given reasonable nonce and <br />* xsssonable opportunity to'Be heard.- <br />8 * The Court theVcarefufly exarninied the legal tte^ <br />f ' • dardsithat 'ean^ .used.to deny aj$p«^^^ usepeanit <br />L IfTifI . ha legally suffieiMt unatng, vnesi <br />• I . sider whether the prQjM^.'usa Js i <br />^ ' •/ . its tsrid use plenjo preserve^ the h <br />^ • £ ■ . - Seednd. the CoOri held that a Rndl <br />•• r r- ...• i. * excavation appears to. increase the <br />= . • ■ • I. * dards.that can t^.usep.tp ceny a ipwiw u»c <br />>1 .. > . * I : • epplicatidn.///»f,. thep>i^.eoneludedthatar,r^ <br />■z . " Jng'that S use h contrary to, a epmprehenshe plan <br />f : • h. M i^oatlv suftldeht findine, ante a city may con- <br />Iccent Law Cases <br />onir.g - Spacia' Use Permits <br />ipw vflr mM • ^ ^ * V • ^ <br />h a legally sufficient finding, since a aty may corn <br />-?-»— ...L.Mi,— proposed.usa is consistent iVttn <br />• _ the’land's charecter. <br />W..W..W, ...»_____________findirsg that further <br />excavation appears' to. increase the danger of irre­ <br />parable environrnental dernage Is. also a legally <br />■ sufficient finding. Sufficient rvider.ee was found <br />on the record to support .this firtding. <br />* * <br />he ?/.inr.*sota Supreme Court recently decided on - <br />1 irr.portan: special use permit case, in v.t.ich the <br />eague partic'pated as an a.m1cus curiae. . ^ .. -. • * <br />X . <br />V-; ThVrd,' the Court held that the finding that an ep- <br />^ .“ plicantY failure to prove that a proposed use will <br />. riot affect health, safety,rnpralsand vvel.are of the <br />dccupahtt* of the'^surrournling'land. IS legally suffi ­ <br />cient. This is'p^icufar^^ <br />the ljurdeh of proof bh the. applicant. Pir.ally, the <br />Court'held! that a findirigithaj the end use would <br />.'dwisibh biebiusi loci* governmerjt is better able to^ <br />iciou» ffMinn.'Sup..CL, Apnl J4,.1978 v-';^ . I <br />cision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which . .• <br />limately reversed the'decision and disinissed thei_* •I'*. <br />mpany'scomplaint... . . ' : ZbriTiiaAdult'Bookstores ■ <br />le Court first discussed, the issue of procedural <br />le process. Since the issuarice of a special use.per{ i ^ <br />it is a quasi-judicial function of the council, the. ^4. <br />sic rights of reasonable riotice of e hearing and e^*.,.‘ • <br />Bspnsbia opportunity to be heard must be conh - <br />ied with. The Court concluded, however.' that j . <br />ZOTThg^AduftB^ •: <br />•*r A'ciity ebuneij pes^*eYesblofion.directir>9 the <br />V ' local, biiindinjg 'official tt! withhold tf»e'issuance of <br />. V an occupancy pefrhil for in adult bookstore because <br />VI * tKe'Visuef efisplays in dw.«ndpws .offend^ nearby <br />residents'arid reridered we'location urmiitable for: <br />thii'^^.Tof fesinesi the' resolution was invalidat- <br />!tslde the record. <br />.ri -u <br />• f * ‘ * <br />- i*ji.^,'S*tead‘••• 'V • •’ * •• <br />• •• \