Cited by

12 The municipality must “at a minimum” have “the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion.” White Bear Rod & (quotation omitted).

And the supreme court has previously held that “at a minimum,” an agency must “have the reasons for its decisions recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion.” White Bear Rod & (quotation omitted).

The first is reflected in White Bear Rod & in which the supreme court reversed and remanded to the city council because its decision “lack[ed] any findings of fact or other explanation of its decision adequate for any judicial review.” Id.

While a zoning body need not prepare formal findings of fact, it is, at a minimum , required to “have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion.” Earthburners, (quoting White Bear Rod & ).

Rather, it is sufficient for a City Council to “have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing,” so long as the reasoning is not too “conclusory.”.White Bear Rod & (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See White Bear Rod & (quotation omitted).

granted where there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” (quotation omitted); (stating that “certiorari is an extraordinary writ that is appropriate only when no other review is authorized by law” (citing White Bear Rod & )).

A city council is not required to prepare formal findings of fact, but it must “have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion.” White Bear Rod &

For example, in White Bear Rod & the supreme court reversed the city’s decision to deny a special-use permit because the city failed to make appropriate findings supporting its decision.

Schlener argues that we should nonetheless reach the merits of his appeal in the interests of judicial economy, citing White Bear Rod &

Auth., (quoting White Bear Rod & , 742-43 n. 5 (Minn.1986)).

“While it is not necessary to prepare formal findings of fact, a county board ‘must, at a minimum, have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion.’ ” (); (holding that a city council’s decision to deny a special use permit lacked adequate findings when it listed nothing more than its sources of information and did not state how the council may have evaluated or used this information).

Mandamus has its place, and there may be a quasi-judicial proceeding presenting a legal question to which certiorari still lends itself.” Id.; see also White Bear Rod & (explaining that “a declaratory judgment or injunction action is generally more appropriate, or sometimes mandamus” for reviewing municipal zoning matters, but certiorari is appropriate to review “a narrow legal procedural question”).

See Earthburners, (ordering remand to county board to “reopen” zoning proceedings, to hear from all interested parties, “and ultimately to allow the board to articulate the reasons for whatever action it takes”); White Bear Rod & -43 (Minn.1986) (remanding to city council “to prepare appropriate findings” on decision regarding special-use permit application); Foesch v. Indep.

See Honn v. City of Coon Rap *364 ids, (providing procedure for review of legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions); see also White Bear Rod & (concluding that “certiorari ordinarily is no longer appropriate in reviewing any zoning matter, legislative or quasi-judicial”).

of Comm’rs, , *566 580 (Minn.2000); Earthburners, (reviewing board “must confine its inquiry to those issues raised in [the] earlier proceedings”); White Bear Rod & (city council not required to make formal findings but, at a minimum, must “ ‘have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion’ ” (quotation omitted)).

-17 (Minn. 1981) (stating decision-maker must give reasonable basis for zoning decisions); see also White Bear Rod & (remanding for findings where city Council’s denial of special-use permit amendment lacked findings of fact or other explanation of its decision adequate for judicial review).

The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the necessity of an agency’s findings in White Bear Rod &amp

See White Bear Rod & (“Certiorari is appropriate to review quasi-judicial proceedings only where there is no appeal and no other adequate remedy.”) The jurisdictional question highlights a difference between Minn.Stat.

But section 480A.06, subdivision 3, “does not purport to grant exclusive jurisdiction for writs of certiorari to the court of appeals.” White Bear Rod & (statute providing for district court review of land use planning decisions makes clear that the district court has at least concurrent certiorari jurisdiction).

Pierce’s reliance on White Bear Rod & is misplaced for the same reason.

See White Bear Rod & (statute providing for district court review of land use planning decisions makes clear that the district court has at least concurrent certiorari jurisdiction).