Laserfiche WebLink
04 14 00 1*RI 12:28 FAX <br />CITY Of ORONO ‘S’ 6122494616 <br />0015.04/15/00 \y : \f/c\ rtoi^^u <br />what ia <br />^ - --n-iTio- ordinance or In emending anIn oneetlng ® approach la Ic^^axatlve; what le <br />?ovilved*io^e kind of municipal planning in which a wide <br />S£sS^s-: s:::::;.™ 3uss«‘ <br />etcv Ttf r-" *'•'*•“ *“*• ’ ■ <br />Thu., . .oning authority i« less clrcut..crib.d by Judicial <br />ov.r.ight when it act. l.giaiatiwely than when it acts in a qua.i- <br />judicial role. <br />still, a nunlcipal deeialonmakinB body ha. broad discretionary <br />power to deny an application for a v.ri.nee. amUndschoab. 336 <br />H.W.id S03, 508.09 (Minn. 1993)• The fact that a court r.vlewing <br />the action at a munieipal body may have arrived at a different <br />conclueion, had it baen a member of the body, doe. not lnv.lid.te <br />the Judgment of the city offiel.l. if they acted in good faith and <br />within the broad dl.er.tion «<eord.d them by at.tut.a and the <br />relevant ordinance.. Id,, ae S39. In variance cases, reaeonablene.s <br />la to bo meaeured by the atandard set out in the local ordinance- <br />^d. at 50B n•6. <br />Tha city argua® that ita decieion to deny the ahared dock <br />proposal was legislative, and that even if the daci.ien were quaai- <br />judiclal, it Still was reasonable. The city argues that, because <br />under the Orono city code an aeeeasory uae is limited to the <br />exclusive uee o£ the principal supporting structure, any dock on <br />-riliotaon'a land can be for the uee o£ the people living in <br />e <br />Tilloteon-0 house only. <br />-5-