Laserfiche WebLink
Ci.TY 01- UKUNV � b"IC4lSU7�IU U6/L'1 /yb "IU:Sy � :Ub/"IU N0;1yS <br /> what �e reasonable ; <br /> In enacting a zoning ordina+nce or in amending an <br /> ordinance to rezone , the approach is legislative; what is <br /> involved is a kind of municipal planning in which a wide . <br /> range of value �udgmen�s ie considered. On the other <br /> hand, in granting or denying a epecial uge permit, the <br /> inquiry is more judicial in character since the zoning <br /> authority is applYing $PeGific use standards set by the <br /> zaning ardinance to a particular individual u$e . <br /> v �o R , 313 N .W. 2d 409 , 417 (Minn. 19H1) . <br /> Thus, a zoning authority ie lese carcumscrib�d by judicial <br /> oversight when it acts legislatiVely than when it act9 in a quasi- <br /> judicial role . � <br /> Sti1.1 , a municipal decisionmaking body has broad diacretionary <br /> power to deny an application for a variance . VanL��c oot , 336 <br /> pl.W. 2d 503 , 506-09 (Minn. 1983) . The facC that a court reviewing <br /> the action of a municipal body may have arrived a;. a different <br /> conclueion, had it been a member of the body, doee r.ot invalidate <br /> the judgment of the city officials if they acted in good faith and <br /> within the broad discretion accorded Lhem by atatutea and the <br /> relevanL ordinances . ,�d . at 509 . In variance caee9, reasonableness <br /> is to be measured by the standard eet out in the local ordinance . <br /> �, a� 508 n. 6 . <br /> The city arguee that ite decision to deny the ahared dock <br /> propoeal was legi�lative, and that even if the decision were quaai- <br /> judicial, it still was reasonable. The city argues that , because <br /> under the Orono City Code an accessory use is limited to the <br /> excluaive use of the principal supporting structurc , any dock on <br /> Tillotson' e land can be for the use of the peo�le living in . <br /> Tillotson' e house only. � • <br /> 5- , <br /> .� <br />