Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />fairness. See Kletschka v. LeSueur County Bd .0fComm'rs., 277 <br />N.W.2d 404 (Minn., 1979). <br /> <br />4. Rebuttal. Even if witnesses are not sworn or cross-examined, <br /> <br />governing bodies should allow for informal questioning of <br /> <br />witnesses. It is also important to allow the applicant sufficient <br /> <br />time to respond to concerns and objections raised at the hearing. <br /> <br />This may occur during the hearing or, if the applicant requests or <br /> <br />agrees to extend the municipality's time for decision (see below), <br />at a subsequent meeting. <br /> <br /> <br />Findings of Fact and Statement ofthe Reasons for Denial. <br /> <br /> <br />Findings of fact should be prepared with respect to any contested <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />land use matter, including legislative decisions such as requests for <br /> <br />comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance amendments and <br /> <br />rezonings. Findings of fact should be based on the evidence <br /> <br />presented at the hearing, and should be keyed to the statutory and <br /> <br />ordinance requirements for the proposed land use approval. <br /> <br /> <br />Findings may be prepared in advance of the hearing, but should be <br /> <br /> <br />supplemented by specific action of the governing body as <br /> <br /> <br />necessary to make them consistent with the testimony received at <br /> <br /> <br />the hearing. <br /> <br />The 2003 amendments to Minn. Stat. S15.99 (the 60 day rule), in <br /> <br />Subd. 2( c), require that an applicant be provided with a written <br />