Laserfiche WebLink
William K. Goodrich <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />be the subject of a referendum. Denney., 295 Minn. aE 29, 202 <br />N.W.2d at 896.2 <br /> <br /> It is our opinion that Ordinance 87-7 was legislative in <br />character, and thus properly subject to the referendum. <br /> <br />Ordinance 87-7 was general legislation which proposed a permanent <br />and uniiorm zoning law regulating the use of property around the <br />Gateway North Industrial Airport. The comprehensive airport <br />zoning regulation ordinance would have become a new law. <br />Consequently, under the Oakman and Denne¥ cases, supra, a <br />municipality's decision to enact a comprehensive airport zoning <br />ordinance is a legislative act which may be the subject of a <br />reEerendum petition. <br /> <br /> As a result of the unsuccessful referendum, =he Ra~sey <br />City Council may not pass the same ordinance again, or one with <br />the same essential features. However, it could pass a new <br />ordinance in good faith which is essentially different from the <br />ordinance voted down. 'See Mecne!!a v. Meininc, 133 Minn. 98, 99- <br />100, 157 N.W. 991, 992 (1916). In Megne!la, the Duluth City <br />Council passed an ordinance regulating "jitneys" on the same day <br />it repealed an identical ordinance enacted earlier in that year <br /> <br /> The Dennev decision overruled two prior Attorney General's <br />Opinions to the contrary, Ops. Atty. Gen. 59a-32 (October 7, <br />!968) and 858 (July 2!, 1967). See Denney, 295 Minn. at 28 <br />n.9, 202 N.W.2d a% 895 n. 9. <br /> <br /> <br />