|
§ 462.355
<br />
<br />HOUSING, REI~EVELOPMENT, PLANhrING
<br />
<br /> Notes of Decisions
<br />! .
<br /> Compensation 3
<br />
<br /> ' . g..Interim ordinances
<br /> · : Although state statute' grants municipalities
<br /> · -:broad authority to enact ~oratorium, that authori-
<br /> :," ' !, ty is not unlimited; municipality must exercise its
<br /> :. moratorium authority for purpose of protecting
<br />I' . ' ., planning process, and m~y not arbitrarily enact
<br /> "-interim moratorium ordinSnce to delay or prevent
<br /> · '" '; "single project. Medical .~tMces] Inc. v. City of
<br /> ":' 'i :.' 'Savage, App.1992, 487 N. IV.2d 263.
<br /> ' - City acted arbitrarily in adopting moratorium on
<br />I issuance of building and special use permits in
<br /> .... '~.. industriM zones where city enacted moratorium six
<br />
<br />weeks after waste processor filed declaratory judg-
<br />ment action seeking determination that infectious
<br />waste processing facility was permitted use under
<br />. city zoning ordinance. Medical Services, Ina v.
<br />City of Savage, App..1992, 487 N.W£d 263 ....
<br />
<br /> 3: Compensation "
<br /> A city's interim moratorium denying property
<br />og-ner all economically viable use of property for
<br />two years ,~-as not a taking of properB'; mor'4.~ori-
<br />um did not deny owner "all economically viable use
<br />of its property." Woodbury Place Partaers v. City
<br />of Woodbury, App.1992, 492. N.W£d 258, certiorari
<br />denied 113 S.Ct. 2929, 124 L.]~d2d 679. :
<br />
<br /> · [Se'e'mqin volume for 1]
<br /> : ' '"'Subc~':~a." ~ert~in .zoning ordinance. A municipality must riot enact~ amend, or enforce
<br /> '.. _. ' ..a zoning ~o~dinance that has the cftc'ct of altering the exSsting density, lot-size requirements,
<br /> I oi' 'inanufa.~.'.tpred :.home setback requirements in any manufactured home park consh-itcted
<br /> . before January..1, .1995, if the manufactured home park, when constructed, complied with the
<br /> · ' ..... then..exSsting.density, .lot;size .xnd..·setback requirements.. '-... · .... - .'; -. '
<br />
<br /> ~.".,>.':..';.::~.~w. er persoii% a licen'_a~d day ca~r~.facility serving.12 or fewer persons, .and a group family
<br /> Ill~; ':' .: day care facility licensqd under.Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 to serve 14 or
<br /> I - .. · . fewer children shall bz considered a permitted single family r. esirJtqriiet-~e of property for
<br /> · '"/' :.the purposes of zoning:,' except that a residential facility whoge t~n.'.mary p~pos~ 'is to treat.
<br /> '. .... ._juvenil_es wh~_~bsve vial*t~,d~criminal s~tutes relating to sex offi~nses or~e been ad~udica~d
<br /> ':' :':..'~ ~ on the basi~ qt' C°nduqt ~n .v/o]~i~ of criminal §tatu~elatmg-'~--s-ex 0ffensqs
<br />
<br /> .... · .... .·.1994 Legislation. ":'..: ..',. :...- . ..... . '.ers is not considered a-p .e:~mitted:'single .farnfly.
<br /> I" ...... .'~:.~: The 1'994 amendment a~ded, subd~'la,:~el~fi~g to ~ :residential use. -'..-' · - . '
<br /> .. . .zpning ordinances which alter requirements of' ':": .... '"'' "
<br />
<br /> I........ The 1995 amendment, irt subd. 7, prOvided'that a .... .
<br /> · .: !. residential facility that treats juvenile sex offend-·
<br />
<br />Ii" ' Enforcement '70.5 . ' .... Decisions of coun~ board on zoning matt~s are
<br /> . · __' '" subject to rational basis test on re,dew in district. ' ..
<br /> :" cour~ Commdnications Properties, Inb~ v: County
<br /> · . . ]'-. '.: ~.0J:" Rational basis, validity of zoning, or- 'bf Steelg, App.199.3, 506..N.W.2~. 670.
<br /> : dinanees Zoning d'eeision must .be .upheld un]e~s opP°'.
<br /> "~: '.'~"~ :' ' Court should not interfere with municipal zoning., nents prove that ciassifieation is unsupported by
<br /> · ,. :. decision that has a "rational basis" or is "reason- any rational basis related to promoting public
<br /> .... . · ...- ably debatable." RA_ Putnam & Associates, Inc.. health, safety, morals,, or general ~velfar~...-Com-
<br />i".". ~"-' v. City.o£ Mendots Heights, Dakota County, App.. :. munications Properties, Inc. v. ~ounty of Steele, .
<br />
<br /> go
<br />
<br />HOUSING, REDEVELOPS'
<br />
<br /> 21. ~ Reasonableness, vail(
<br /> dinances
<br /> Generally, othera5se i'alid zoni
<br /> tutes a taking ff it denies landowt
<br /> · ly viable or beneficial use of p~
<br /> differently, all reasonable use of~
<br /> · er v. City of Wayzata, App.1994
<br /> review granted (1 pet.) & revie,
<br />
<br /> 24. Presumptions and [
<br /> validity of zoning ordin:
<br /> If city council fails to record
<br /> -. determination at time it acts,
<br /> pre-qumed to be arbitrars'. R~A-
<br /> ates, Inc. 'v. City of Mendota
<br /> County, App.1994, 510 N.W£d 2
<br /> Requirement that city make
<br /> record of basis for zoning decisi
<br /> avoid presumption that decision'
<br /> ..vents city from offering ~fter th~
<br /> unrelated to actual reasons fo
<br /> tLA. Putnam & Associates, Inc. ~
<br /> HeightsJ~ Dakoha County, App.j
<br /> · 264, review denied. ·.:
<br /> · Municipality satisfies requirer
<br /> contemporaneous record of basi
<br /> · sion so as to avoid presumption
<br /> arbitrar~ when it prepares recc
<br /> · ·able time of reaching decision.
<br />· - · Associates, Inc.' v.' City of Mendc
<br /> '.:'ta County, App.1994, 510 N.W.~
<br /> v hied. ' ....
<br /> Whether ~ity has"prepar~d r
<br /> '~oning decision in reasonably t~
<br /> to void presumption that decis
<br /> .:must be considered'in ligh[ of
<br /> ' zoning decision, such as compl~
<br /> vowed in reaching that decision
<br /> Associates, Inc~ v. City of Mend~
<br /> ta County, App.1994, 510 N.W.;
<br /> hied.
<br />
<br />· 32. Amendment of zoning or,
<br />eral
<br />· Lando~mer lost wha~e~er rig'.
<br />to approval of its building pen
<br />site plan when zoning ordinan~
<br />preclude the proposed use~ Rc
<br />Nursery, Inc. v. City of Rosem,
<br />N.W£d 641.
<br />
<br />'34. . . Rational basis, amc
<br /> ordinances
<br /> Denial by county .board of
<br />radio station o~mer's request f
<br />zoned agricultural to allow co
<br />tower was arbitxmT; owner
<br />show detrimental reliance,
<br />about effect of tower on surrc
<br />and claim that tower would co
<br />and were not adequately suppo
<br />no rational basis to support ret:
<br />al zoning. Communications
<br />County of Steele, App.1993, 5C
<br />
<br />
<br />
|