Cited by

“ The Minnesota legislature has delegated to municipalities the power to determine and plan the use of land within their boundaries.” see also Minn. Stat. § § 462.353, subd.

See id.; (“The fact that a court reviewing the action of a municipal body may have arrived at a different conclusion .

does not invalidate the judgment of the city officials if they acted in good faith and within the broad discretion accorded them by statutes and the relevant ordinances.”

(noting that appellate courts review “the decision of the city council independent of the findings and conclusions of the district court”); see also Toby’s of Alexandria, (reversing the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-

In conducting our review, we reco gnize that “[m]unicipalities have ‘broad discretionary power’ in considering whether to grant or deny a variance.” Krummenacher, d at 727 ().

10 VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights

Co. v. State , (“[In a] vested rights analysis the court asks whether a developer has progressed sufficiently with his construction to acquire a vested right to complete it.”) ; –09 (Minn. 1983) (recognizing that a municipality must act in good faith but has “broad discretionary power” to grant or deny a request for a zoning variance).

1, 1989); (“Based upon an independent examination of the record, we must determine whether the City’s denial of respondent’s application for subdivision was reasonable.”).

VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights , 8-09 (Minn. 1983) (citation omitted).

or whether the reasons given by the body were legally sufficient and had a factual basis.”

DECISION I. In order to overturn a municipality’s decision on a zoning matter, the court must find that (1) the decision “was arbitrary and capricious,” or (2) “the reasons assigned by the governing body do not have the slightest validity or bearing on the general welfare of the immediate area.” (quotation omitted).

at 23 ; , 507 n. 3 (Minn.1983) (discussing a quasi-judicial denial of a variance pursuant to an ordinance that required a city council to determine that the proposed variance would not “endanger the public safety,” “in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, morals,” or “in any other respect be contrary to the intent of

(CUP denial); (quasi-judicial zoning decisions).

“The Minnesota legislature has delegated to municipalities the power to determine and plan the use of land within their boundaries.” see Minn.Stat.

The supreme court has held that 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

In its opinion, the district court stated that the standard of review for zoning matters is whether the local authority’s action was reasonable and that “in variance cases, reasonableness is measured by the standards set out in local ordinance and not the standards contained in [state] statute.” ( , 508 n. 6 (Minn.1983)) (emphasis added).

White Bear Docking & Storage

See Carl Bolander & (“The standard of review is whether the [council’s] decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, with review focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for the reasons given.”); (holding that the general standard of review for quasi-judicial zoning decisions is whether the action was arbitrary and capricious); In re Quantification of Envtl.