Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUntitled LAW OFFICES OF ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING 126 SOUTH SECOND STREET P.O. BOX 40 STILLWATER,MINNESOTA 55082 439-2878 LYLE J.ECKBERG JAMES F.LAMMERS ROBERT G.BRIGGS January 12 , 1984 PAUL A.WOLFF MARK J.VIERLING Ms. La Vonne Wilson City Clerk City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Stillwater Township - Annexation Appeal Dear La Vonne: Enclosed herewith please find the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order entered on January 11 , 1984 affirming the amended Order of the Minnesota Municipal Board which grants the property formerly located in the Township of Stillwater to the City of Stillwater; that property consisting of parcels located north of Highway 36 and east of Greeley Street, being the Country Kitchen, Burger King, Zantigo, Crown Auto, Nash-Finch and other properties., The Order of the District Court shall be final unless appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court within the time allotted by law. I suggest that you make this an Agenda item under the City Attorney' s heading for the next general meeting. YoursAry trly,r C_M k J. V. -rling MJV:kk /T::> Enclosure (1) STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF WASHINGTON TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re the Matter of the Joint FilS No. 49381 Resolution of the City of Stillwater and Town of Stillwater FINDINGS OF FACT for the Orderly Annexation of CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Certain Land to the City of AND Stillwater. ORDER The above-entitled matter came on for a court trial before the undersigned on October 27, 1983, at the Washington County Court- house, Stillwater, Minnesota. David Hebert appeared on behalf of Stillwater Township. Mark Vierling appeared on behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights . David Magnuson appeared on behalf of the City of Stillwater. Based upon the records, files , memoranda and proceedings herein, the Court now being fully advised makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That on October 20, 1980, this Court found that the Minnesota Municipal Board Order, dated April 12 , 1976 , was based upon an erroneous theory of law. 2. That on October 20, 1980, this Court remanded the above-entitled matter to the Minnesota Municipal Board for further consideration in conformity with the decision of the Court. 3. That on March 13, 1981, and May 27, 1981 , the Minne- sota Municipal Board held additional hearings and reviewed the facts and procedures it used in making its original decision. 4. That on July 17, 1981, the Minnesota Municipal Board issued an Amended Order, finding that the weight of the evidence * f supported the annexation of the area before it to the City of Stillwater. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. That the Amended Order of the Minesota Municipal Board issued on July 17, 1981, was adequately supported by the evidence on the record. 2. That the Board' s Amended Order was not based upon an erroneous theory of law. 3 . That the Board' s Amended Order was not arbitrary or capricious and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: ORDER That the Amended Order of the Minnesota Municipal Board, dated July 17 , 1981, is affirmed. The attached memorandum is made a part hereof by reference. I! Dated: 11„, < < 74rP itd ' nOV , ' ter o Judge of District Ci rt n MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on appeal from the Amended Order of the Minnesota Municipal Board issued July 17, 1981 . The Court's review of this matter is governed by Minn. Stat. §414.07 . The version of §414.07 in effect at the time , this cause of action arose provided: Any person aggrieved by any incorpration, annexa- tion, detachment or annexation-detachment order of the Board may appeal to the District Court upon the following grounds : (a) That the Board had no jurisdiction to act; (b) That the Board exceeded its jurisdiction; (c) That the order of the Board is arbitrary, fraudulent, capricious or oppressive, or in unreasonable disregard of the best interests of the territory affected; (d) That the order is based upon an erroneous theory of law. On October 20, 1980, this Court reviewed a previous Order of the Minnesota Municipal Board concerning the present action. The matter was remanded to the Board because its original finding was based upon an erroneous theory of law. On March 13 and on May 27 of 1981, the Municipal Board conducted additional hearings concerning the annexation. The Board reviewed the facts and procedures it used in making its decision and concluded that the weight of the evidence supported the annexation. Having reviewed the entire record, the Court concludes : (1) That the Board had jurisdiction to act; (2) That the Board did not exceed itS juris- diction; (3) That the Order of the Board was not arbitrary, fraudulent, capricious or oppressive, or in unre ' ; sonable disregard of the best interesto of the territory affected; (4) That the Order was not based upon an erroneous theory of law. Since this Court's review of the annexation deci ion is limited by the factors identified above, no grounds exist w ich would justify a reversal of the Board's decision. Accordingly, the Amended Order dated July 17, 1981, is affirmed. Dated: �� , ,,,L1 � t er , Tom fan• Judge of DistrictrCourt FILE NO. �!r/�1 .r�'�W�[�`1KC(". .LIR.