Laserfiche WebLink
101O RAN D'JM <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 />attPnti-- ►-n hearing Pvidence ;1+ 4-t—trinnt's before adopting; the <br />resulutiotn. W1he stauuaru iur rev.L!w ul ({Ud51-JU1,1lLld1 <br />of a municipal council in granting_a variance are reiterated in <br />Merriam Park Community Council v__Mcl)onough (1973) 297 Minn. 285, <br />210 H.W. (2) 416, where the Court said: <br />"Willi respect to decisions of municipal and other <br />governmental bodies having; the duty of making; de- <br />cisions involving 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 deg=isi.on, but mere- <br />ly to determine whether that booty was within its <br />jurisdiction, was not mistaken as to the applicable <br />law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or <br />unreasonably, =qnd to determine whether t e evide»co <br />could reasonably support or justify the. determination. <br />Villa of. Edina v. Joseph, 264 Hinn. 84, 119 N.W.2d 809 <br />(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 and just disposition of the <br />controversy presented by the opposing, positions of the Beckers <br />and Rhode. Therefore, the only clucstioll 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 will 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 imttrdi.Ate <br />predecessor in interest of both the Beckers and Rhode, had ron- <br />trolling interest in bath the Becke,- an,1 Rhode propet ties C nd <br />could have combined them to comply with thr size and width re- <br />quirements. Clearly Rogers did not have such controlling interests <br />-7- <br />