Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2011 - Special Jt Mtg w CC

Home

Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1980). Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 42 N.W.2d 553 (Minn. 1950). Village of St. Louis Park v. Casey, 218 Minn. 394, 16 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. 1944). Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1980). Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1984). Sample Definitions Section. • "lawn and garden center," • The words "accessory", "subordinate," "incidental," and "main," • "structure" When a court is called upon to resolve a controversy over an undefined or ambiguous word or phrase in a city ordinance, the court may not always interpret the ordinance in the manner the city would prefer. The court may, but is not required, to give deference to the city's interpretation of the ordinance. In interpreting zoning ordinances, the court will attempt to fmd the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms. The court will interpret any doubtful language against the city and in favor of the landowner. Only in limited circumstances, where the language is so ambiguous on its face that a plain meaning cannot be understood, will the court consider evidence of the city's intent in drafting the ordinance. The best way to avoid the time and expense of a lawsuit over basic terms in a zoning ordinance is clear drafting from the outset. A definition section is essential to any zoning ordinance. Terms and concepts that may be reasonably subject to more than one interpretation should be explicitly defined in this section. C. Drafting a legally defensible zoning ordinance In drafting a zoning ordinance, cities must also draft an ordinance that conforms to the requirements of state and federal law. In addition, cities must draft ordinances that are consistent with state and federal court rulings. 12 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES