Cited by

“In cases where the interpretation of an ordinance is at issue, this court looks to the ordinance itself to determine whether a governmental entity’s decision was unreasonable or arbitrary and capricious.” Yeh , d at 127 (citing White Bear Docking & Storage, ).

(quoting White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake , d 174, 175 (Minn. 1982)).

DECISION An appellate court’s “authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.” White Bear Docking & Storage

limited and sparingly invoked.” White Bear Docking & Storage, see also Big Lake Ass’n v. St.

This limited expansion of the record is supported by caselaw which has recognized that, except in rare cases, “it is the duty of the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord appropriate deference to civil authorities in the performance of their duties.” White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake

.” White Bear Docking & Storage

RDNT, –76 (Minn. 2015); see also White Bear Docking & Storage, (cautioning judicial restraint in zoning appeals).

An appellate court’s “authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.” White Bear Docking & Storage, see also Big Lake Ass’n v. St.

Except in such cases, it is the duty of the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord appropriate deference to civil authorities.” White Bear Docking & Storage

Given that a “court’s authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked,” White Bear Docking & Storage, d 174, 175 (Minn. 1982), a city’s decision relating to a zoning variance should be set aside 11 only “if the decision is unreasonable,” Sagstetter v. City of St.

We “defer to a municipality’s decision when the factual basis for the denial has even the ‘slightest validity.’” Roselawn Cemetery v. City of Roseville , (quoting White Bear Docking & Storage, ).

This is so because an appellate court’s “authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.” White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake , see Big Lake Ass’n v. St.

An appellate court’s “authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.” White Bear Docking & Storage, see Big Lake Ass’n v. St.

An appellate court’s “authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.” White Bear Docking & Storage

decision has no rational basis.” White Bear Docking & Storage

“[I]n special use permit cases, ‘reasonableness’ is measured by the standards set out in the local ordinance.” White Bear Docking & Storage

“[I]n special use permit cases, ‘reasonableness’ is measured by the standards set out in the local ordinance.” White Bear Docking & Storage

White Bear Docking and Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake , ; Arcadia Dev.

“The setting aside of routine municipal decisions should be reserved for those rare instances in which the [township ]’s decision has no rational basis.” White Bear Docking & Storage

See White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake , , 175 (Minn. 1982) (addressing judicial review of municipal decisions generally).

D E C I S I O N “The court’s authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.” White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of 6 White Bear Lake, (addressing refusal to grant special- use permit).

.” White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake, 11

See White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake , (“The court’s authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.”).

Th e reasonableness of a decision on a CUP application “is measured by the standa rds set out in the local ordinance.” White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake

see White Bear Docking & Storage, (“The setting aside of routine municipal decisions should be reserved for those rare instances in which the City’s decision has no rational basis.

See White Bear Docking & Storage

See White Bear Docking & Storage, (stating that the “mere fact” a court might have reached a different conclusion does not invalidate the city’s decision if it “acted in good faith and within the broad discretion accorded [it]”).

y zoning authorities have “wide latitude” in making decisions on conditional use permits, Schwardt, d at 386 , and except in rare cases where there is no rational basis for the decision, “it is the duty of the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord appropriate deference to civil authorities” in routine zoning matters, White Bear Docking & Storage

At the same time, appellate courts’ “authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.” White Bear Docking & Storage

“Reasonableness is measured by examining whether the standards in the ordinance have been satisfied.” (citing White Bear Docking & Storage, ).

hat courts reviewing decisions of this nature are not to substitute their judgment for that of the decision-making body, and that “[t]he court’s authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.” White Bear Docking & Storage

Appellate courts defer to a municipality’s decision when the factual basis for the denial has even the “slightest validity.” White Bear Docking & Storage

White Bear Docking & Storage

White Bear Docking & Storage

See Nielsen, 252 Minn. at 18 , d at 858 ; White Bear Docking & Storage, (“The court’s authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited and sparingly invoked.”).

White Bear Docking & Storage, Honn, d at 417 .