06-12-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c. The above findings should be sufficient to justify a denial. Findings that are not supported by so much expert testimony may also sometimes be sufficient. However, if the applicant introduces expert testimony and the City^d/or the objecting neighbors do not rebut that evidence with enough cre^ble cxpen testimony, then even well-drafted findings of fact will not be sufficient in order to prevail. ^ However, the City need not convince the court that every finding is sufficiently supported by the facts in order to prevail. If legal^^pne finding supported adequately by the facts in th^record may be sufficient Hubbard Broadcasting. Inc, v. Citv of AKon . 323 N.W^d 757 (Minn. 1982). In addition to the above, it is helpfulto i^ntify in the findings, by reference to exhibit numbers in the record, all key^hms and documents submitted by the applicant and others so there will b^no cohfusion or debate before the court on appeal as to what plans and documents w'ere^tually in the record and which were the final plans that acmall^were voted up^by the planning commission and council. Additional findings shoiUd be added as appropriate undeKeach of the above ordinance standards if^ere is any rationd basis to include^em. However, in each instance, stateconclusion and referrence the evidence^hich supports that conclusion. £^h conclusion must be relevant to the standartt^in the ordinance. R^ember, the court should not substitute its judgment tsi^;^that of the City if>here is a rational basis for the decision. The decision neeohot be empiriMHy right The decision only needs to be rational \ The Appellate Courts Have Provided Several Additional General Guidelines for Petermining the Adequacy of the^Findlnys of Fact . The following guidelines relite to conditional use permits whi^, if denied, are the most difficult to uphold on^ppeal. They are alxn delines to USe in denial of rezonings and variances where the city’s burden is much easier to meet 1. 2. The reviewing court wiD assess the legal sufficiency of the reasons given by the city and determine whether, if legally sufficient they had a factual basis in the record. C.R. Investments. Inc, v. Village of Shoreview. 304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 1981). Denial of a special use permit is arbitrary if it is established that all standards specified by the ordinance as a condition of granting the permit have been met Hav v. Township of Grow. 206 N.W.2d 19 (1973). Zvlka v. Citv of Crystal. 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969). * 013/220777664(3/93_____ Page 100 TVrt: .