Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

RELEVANT LINKS: Mendota Golf TT P v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 37 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1949). County of Morrison v. Wheeler, 722 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). See Section V -C, Standards for reviewing zoning applications: limits on city discretion. State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 37 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1949). State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 37 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1949). U. S. Const. Amend. V. Minn. Const. art. I § 3. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S. Ct. 158 U.S. 1922. See House Research Memo, Eminent Domain: Regulatory Takings. a) Legislative authority must be reasonable Under the federal and state constitution, zoning authority must be used in a manner that is reasonable and free from arbitrariness or discrimination. A city zoning decision is reasonable (not arbitrary), when it bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose of the zoning ordinance. Zoning ordinances may be found to be unreasonable when they appear arbitrary. When a zoning classification treats similarly situated individuals differently, there must be rational reason for the unequal treatment that bears a relation to the purposes of the ordinance (protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public). If no such reasonable or rational justification can be found, the court may decide that the city has been arbitrary. For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court invalidated provisions of one zoning ordinance that allowed public schools, but not private schools, to be located in a residential zone. The court ruled, in that instance, that the ordinance was arbitrary, because "the distinction between the different kinds of schools, upon which the classification made in the ordinance rests, is not based upon alleged evils which it is claimed exist in the case of private schools and do not exist in the case of public or parochial schools." In the courts view two very similar entities (public and private schools) were being treated differently under the law. This difference was not reasonably related to protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public. As a result, the distinction was ruled to be arbitrary. b) A zoning designation may not be so restrictive as to deny all reasonable use of the land Both the U.S. Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution forbid taking private property for public use without just compensation. Zoning regulations may be considered "takings" if a regulation goes too far. This is generally termed a "regulatory taking." League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/10/2012 Zoning Guide for Cities Page 14