Agenda - Council Work Session - 07/08/2003

Home

06717×2005 14:54 LAW OFFICE 2140 4TH AUE -> 42?5545 N0.574 Steven M. Thul, Appcllau~, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. C9-02-1365, Court ofAppeals Published.2 Page 6 of 9 legitimate purpose existed for the ordinance. We disagree. A municipa/ordinance is presumed constitutional. City of St. ?aulv. Datsin, 245 Minn. 325, 329, 71 N.W.2d 855, g58 (1955). Moreover, "if the 'reasonableness of an o~dinance is debatable,' courts will not interfere with the legislative discretion." F~yland, 431 N,W.2d at 872 (quotation omitted). To determine whether a zoning ordinance has a rational basis, first, we identify a legitimate government propose, then ask whether a rational basis exi. sts for the governmental body to believe that the ~egislafion would further the purpose. Grahctm v. Itasca County Planning Corem 'n. 601 N.W,2d 461,465 (Minn. App. I999) (citations omitted). The burden of proof is on the opponent of the ordinance. See Honn v. CioJ of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 414-15 (Minn. 1981). Under the rational basis test, the challenged legislation need only be supported by any set of hcts either known or that Could reasonably be assumed. Arcadia Dev. Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 552 N.W.2d 281,289 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Mirm. Oct. 29, 1996). Generally, thc protection of health, morals, ~afety, or welfare are legitimate purposes. Zyk(a v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 195, 167 N.W.2d 45, 48-49 (Minn. 1969). Appellant contends that in enacting the ordinance the city was merely responding to a neighbor's complaint about noise. We disagree. The record indicates that the legitimate governmental purpose behind the ordinance is safety. The city comxcil discussed safety as a purpose for the ordinance at their council meetings and incorporated the requirement of the FAA approval letter into the exemption beeanse the FAA has specialized knowledge in this area. Moreover, the council's safety concerns were proven justified when a helicopter recently crashed on a Ham Lake road. One week prior to floe accident, the same helicopter landed and took off from appellant's heliport. A simJlar crash in a residential neighborhood could, have caused extensive damage and injury. The city rationally believed that prohibiting helicopter activity in areas zoned for residential use would decrease the risk of helicopter-related damage and injury and would hrther the legitimate government purpose of safer3,. does not violate equal protection. Thus, we conclude the ordinance passes the rational basis test and II. Appellant also argues that the ordinance is impermissibly vague and thus, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We disagree. ht'tp://w,ww.lawlibrary.state.rrm, us/archive/etappub/0303/op02 ! 365-311 .him 6/10/03