Cited by

Appellate courts “will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding a conditional use permit application if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT

See, e.g., RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , (ordinances); Eagan Econ.

See RDNT, LLC v. 5 City of Bloomington

RDNT, - 76 (Minn. 2015) (stating that we must first determine whether the reasons given by the governing body regarding the CUP decision were legally 7 sufficient and then, if the reasons were legally sufficient, whether they had a factual basis in the record); see also White Bear Docking & Storage, d at 17

City of Bloomington, - 8 76 (Minn. 2015).

We review a quasi- judicial decision subject to certiorari review to determine whether it was “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” In re Stoick Creek, LLC, (quotation omitted); RDNT, -76 (Minn. 2015) (reviewing quasi-judicial decision concerning CUP to determine whether city acted “unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously,” including whether “the reasons given by the city were legally sufficient” and, if so,

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

We review de novo “[t]he interpretation of an existing ordinance,” RDNT, (quotation omitted), and the application of an ordinance to undisputed facts, City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.

We review a question of law de novo.” RDNT, (quotation omitted).

But, “[s]ince zoning laws are a restriction on the use of private property, a landowner whose application for a [CUP] has been denied has a lighter burden than one who challenges approval of a permit.” RDNT, n.4 (Minn. 2015).

“The interpretation of an existing ordinance is a question of law for the court.” RDNT, (quotation omitted).

RDNT, -76 (Minn. 2015); (noting on review of district court’s discretionary, custody-related decision that “district court must identify both its decision .

But “our task in this case, like any other, is not to make legislative policy but to interpret and apply existing statutes.” RDNT, -78 n.5 (Minn. 2015); (considering competing public-policy arguments related to judgment renewals and holding that “policy-related issues are best left to the Legislature.

But, “[s]ince zoning laws are a restriction on the use of private property, a landowner whose application for a conditional use permit has been denied has a lighter burden than one who challenges approval of a permit.” RDNT, n.4 (Minn. 2015) (citing Bd.

See RDNT, -76 (Minn. 2015).5 If there is evidence in the record supporting the decision, a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board of adjustment, even if it would 5 The board of adjustment argues that municipal decisions to grant land use permits are reviewed for an abuse of discretion an

RDNT, -76 (Minn. 2015); -18 (Minn. App. 2010) (noting on review of district court’s discretionary, custody- related decision that “the district court must identify both its decision .

“We will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding [an IUP] application if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT

“We will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding a conditional use permit application if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT, -76 (Minn. 2015) (citations omitted).

Planning and zoning decisions will be reve rsed only if the governing body “acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington

RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , -76 (Min n. 2015).

14 unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” Id.; see also RDNT

RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , –76 (Minn. 2015).

Appellate courts reverse a zoning authority’s decision only if it is “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.” RDNT, d 71, 75 (Minn. 2015).

See RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , -76 (M inn.

RDNT, d 71, 75-76 (Minn. 2015) ; see Hagen v. Schirmers , -18 (Minn. App. 2010) (noting, in the context of reviewing a district court’s discretionary, custody -related 13 decision, that “the district court must identify both its decision .

RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington

“[Appellate courts] will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding a conditional use permit application if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT

RDNT, ‒88 (Minn. 2015) (Anderson, J., concurring).

RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , –76 (Minn. 2015).

Invs., d at 325 (explaining that the council could not support its denial with the “vague reservations” of residents and commission members), with RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , (finding that residents’ experience with ongoing construction was “concrete” enough to suppor t the city’s denial of a conditional use permit).

RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , (citing Frank’s Nursery, d at 608 ); cf. St.