Laserfiche WebLink
- ■/ <br />tOlQRAHDUM <br />The adoption of Resolution 851 was a quasi-judicial <br />action by the Orono council. The resolution should be upheld <br />by this Court under established principles If it does not violate <br />established principles of law. It is apparent that the council <br />members studied the problems carefully and devoted much time and <br />attention' hearinp evidence .in** ••T*'*.’im«'nts before adopting the <br />resolution. ^The stanuaru lor review of quasi-judicial acLi>. i.y <br />of a municipal council in grantlng^a variance are reiterated in <br />Merriam Park Community Council v. ltcDonoui;h (1973) 297 Minn. 285, <br />210 N.W. (2) 416, where the Court said: <br />'*Witli respect to decisions of municipal and other <br />governmental bodies having the duty of making de- <br />cision.s invol'^ing judgment and discretion, this <br />court has repeatedly said that it is not the pro­ <br />vince of'the trial court,to substitute its judgment <br />for that of the body making the decision, but mere­ <br />ly to determine whether that body was within its <br />jurisdiction, was not mistaken as to the applicable <br />Iciw, find did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or <br />unreasonably, and to determine whether the evidence <br />could reasonably support or justify the determination. <br />Edina v. Joseph, 264 Minn. 84, 119 N.W.2d 809(1962). <br />Unquestionably the Orono council was acting within its <br />jurisdiction and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or un- <br />reasonably, but instead made a wise and just disposition of the <br />controversy presented by the opposing positions of the Beckers <br />and Rhode. Therefore, the only question presented is whether the <br />council was mistaken as to the applicable law. The. Beckers claim <br />that there were several mistakes of law which yill next be dis- <br />cussed. <br />The Beckers claim the size and width variances should <br />not have been granted because Mr. Fred Rogers, the immcdi.itc <br />predecessor in interest of both the Beckers and Rliodc, h.ad con- <br />interest in both the Becker and Rhode properties and <br />could have combined them to comply with the size .-md width re­ <br />quirements. Clearly Rogers did not have such controlling intercstg <br />-7-