Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/20/2015 - Joint with EPB

Home

RELEVANT LINKS: Euclid v. Ambler, 272 U.S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 114, 71, (1926). See Appendix A: Pyramid of discretion. Conflicts often lead to litigation, and land use regulation is no different. It was through litigation that the U.S. Supreme Court first upheld the constitutionality of zoning in the seminal 1926 decision, Euclid v. Ambler. And lawsuits continue to this day. The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) provides a unique land use insurance coverage that defends cities in land use lawsuits even when there is not a claim for damages. LMCIT members spend almost $3 million a year defending these lawsuits. III. Making versus applying law Land use litigation is costly, and often puts city officials in the difficult position of dealing with controversies that may displease people, no matter the outcome. City officials can help themselves through these controversies by educating themselves about land use regulation authority, and the process and procedures necessary to exercise it. An important consideration is how much authority the city has over any given land use decision. A city has much broader authority when creating its land use plans and ordinances than it does when administering the same. Consequently, it is important for a city official to be aware of what authority the city is acting under whenever making a particular decision. When creating, adopting and amending land use plans and zoning ordinances, a city is making law by exercising so-called "legislative" authority. The council sits as a body of elected representatives to make plans and laws (ordinances) for the entire community to advance health, safety, and welfare. When acting legislatively, the council has broad discretion and will be afforded considerable deference by any reviewing court. In contrast, when applying existing plans and laws, a city council is exercising so-called "quasi-judicial" authority. The limited task is to determine the facts associated with a particular request, and then apply those facts to the relevant law. A city council has less discretion when acting quasi judicially, and a reviewing court will examine whether the city council applied rules already in place to the facts before it. It can be helpful to visualize this as a "pyramid of discretion" that shows cities have greater discretion when making land use decisions at the base of the triangle, and less as decision-making moves up the pyramid. Discretion is greatest when officials are creating local laws and the least when officials are administering those laws. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/1/2011 Planning and Zoning 101 Page 2