Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2014

Home

April 10, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 7 Zoning Bulletin "30% rule "). The Ordinance was adopted in an effort to decrease the concentration of rental housing in the City and thus decrease the levels of nuisance and police violations in neighborhoods, and inversely increase neighborhood quality and livability. Ethan Dean, Holly Richard, and Ted and Lauren Dzierzbicki (the "Prop- erty Owners ") were all owners of property in the City who wanted to rent out their homes but could not obtain rental certification because of the 30% rule. The Property Owners sued the City. They challenged the 30% rule as an act that exceeded the City's zoning powers. They also contended that the 30% rule was unconstitutional under the Minnesota Constitution in that it violated their rights to equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process under the Minnesota Constitution. (Minn. Const. art. 1, §§ 2 and 7.) All parties moved for summary judgment, asking the court to find there were no material issues of fact in dispute and to decide the matter in their favor on the law alone. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. It found the enactment of the 30% rule did not exceed the powers of the City, and that the 30% rule was not unconstitutional. The Property Owners appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota held that a municipality may use its police power to adopt an ordinance limiting the number of lots on a block that are eligible to obtain certification as a rental property. The court explained that the term "police power" means "simply the power to impose such restrictions upon private rights as are practically necessary for the gen- eral welfare of all." The court found the public has a sufficient interest in rental housing to justify a municipality's use of police power as a means of regulating such housing. The Property Owners had argued that the Ordinance was an exercise of the City's statutory zoning power and not an exercise of its police power. However, the court did not address the Property Owners' zoning arguments because it concluded that the Ordinance was an exercise of its police power. The court next noted that the exercise of police power is subject to constitutional limitations, and addressed the Property Owners' arguments that the 30% rule violated their rights to equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process under the Minnesota Constitution. The Property Owners had complained that the 30% rule unevenly af- fected owners who wanted to rent their properties. The court disagreed, and concluded that the 30% rule established a neutral, numerical limit on the number of lots that were eligible to obtain certification as a rental property and applied uniformly throughout the affected districts on a first -come, first- served basis. Because the Property owners failed to make the necessary threshold showing that the 30% rule treated them differently than other similarly situated individuals, the court concluded that their equal - protection claim failed as a matter of law. The Property Owners also asserted that the 30% rule violated their right 10 © 2014 Thomson Reuters