Laserfiche WebLink
Minn. Stat. § 462.355, <br />subd. 4(c) Semler <br />Const., Inc. v. City of <br />Hanover, 667 N.W.2d <br />457 (Minn App., <br />2003). <br />Woodbury Place <br />Partners v. <br />Woodbury, 492 <br />N.W.2d 258 (Minn. <br />Ct. App. 1993). <br />Tahoe - Sierra Pres. <br />Council, Inc. v. Tahoe <br />Reg'l Planning <br />Agency, 535 U.S. 302, <br />122 S. Ct. 1465 <br />(2002) <br />A.G. Op. 477b -34 <br />(July 29, 1991). <br />c. Applicability <br />An interim ordinance or moratorium may not delay or prohibit a subdivision <br />that has been given preliminary approval, nor extend the time for action <br />under the 60 -day rule with respect to any application filed prior to the <br />effective date of the interim ordinance. <br />According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the use of an interim <br />ordinance prohibiting or limiting use of land is generally not compensable if <br />there is a valid purpose for the interim regulation. In evaluating whether an <br />interim ordinance is a temporary taking in the nature of a regulatory taking, <br />courts will look to the parcel as whole. There is no bright -line rule for <br />regulatory takings; rather, they must be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. <br />VI. Zoning ordinance enforcement <br />The Municipal Planning Act authorizes cities to enforce their zoning <br />ordinance through criminal penalties. In addition, civil remedies, such as an <br />injunction, are available to cities to cure on -going violations. The Minnesota <br />Attorney General has ruled that it is a general duty of a city to enforce its <br />zoning ordinance and that a city cannot refuse to enforce zoning <br />requirements by ignoring illegal land uses. In enforcing city ordinances, <br />however, a city must be aware that certain landowners may have specific <br />rights as existing non - conformities; if their non - conforming use pre -dated the <br />city's zoning regulation. <br />46 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA. CITIES <br />