Court Opinion

ID: 9523843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:47:32.552561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:15.425822
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Justice
(concurring specially)-
While I agree with the result in this matter based on the facts here, I am concerned that by implication Honn v. City of Coon Rapids may be considered overruled completely. In my opinion, that would be an inappropriate conclusion.
1. I agree with the court of appeals’ analysis of Honn to provide for a trial to review a zoning matter. This court now circumscribes a full trial as required by Honn when the record of a municipal proceeding was fair, clear and complete; finding under the facts of this case that occurred. That, of course, was not the law when the court of appeals considered this matter. Thus, this court now modifies Honn to the extent that a full trial de novo is not required in certain cases and the court of appeals could not have known when it decided this matter that Honn was to be modified, as we now do. It correctly applied the law as it then existed, in my opinion. New law and new interpretations are properly the function of this court.
2. I have no quarrel with this court’s desire to reduce trials de novo in district court and to avoid courts’ infringing on the decision-making process of municipalities. That is part of this court's function — to outline, circumscribe and guide the judicial system as part of its supervisory and law development powers. Honn had an inadequate record for judicial review, so this court remanded and set out a procedure for reviewing zoning matters. That procedure is still good law and still remains applicable in future cases, but this court now circumscribes a full trial when the record is fair and complete.
*3153. Thus, in future cases trial courts, before denying a full trial, must determine whether the record before the municipality meets this new criterion. A record before a municipality might be fully transcribed, but were the proceedings adequate, fair and complete? This involves determining: were hearing examiners utilized in appropriate proceedings? were witnesses subject to questioning by other parties? was there foundation for opinions expressed? were offers of proof permitted? were matters outside the record relied on? were appropriate continuances permitted? was relevant evidence received? were complete contemporaneous findings made to support the municipalities’ decision? and other such considerations. In other words, the trial court must determine whether the hearing itself was fair and adequate and if the parties had a full opportunity to present their views, or whether the proceedings reflected the will of the decision-makers and not their judgment (majority opinion at 313).
4. In the June 17, 1985, resolution adopted by the city council here, among other factors was a statement to the effect the council also relied upon its experience and knowledge of the area, without greater specificity. I don’t know what that was. In the future, such general statements should be augmented by proper findings, joined in by a majority of the governing body. Parties should know exactly what the decision-makers relied on. The test isn’t just verbatim transcripts and neighborhood opposition alone. Here, the rest of the record justifies the result expressed in this case.
YETKA, Justice.
I join in the special concurrence of Mr. Justice Popovich.