02/03/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-4- property for office building purpose was to discourage competition with Southdale, and that this purpose was not constitutional. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in this case, Pearce v. Village of Edina, 118 N.W.2d 659 (1962) invalidated the Village o---6¥-Ed-i-na zoning 6-Fdlnance, and held that municipalities could not use their zoning ordinances as a means of discouraging competition. A similar result occurred in the case of Metro 500 v. City of Brooklyn Park, 211 N.W.2d 358 (1973). In this matter~ C-i-i~y-of-B-f¥oRlyn Park was approached by a landowner for a permit for the construction of a gas station in a con~nercial zone at an intersection where two gas stations already existed, and th~s would be the third §as station. The city was concerned that three gas stations could not possibly compete and survive in one location such as this, and that ultimately one or more of the stations would close, thus resulting in a blighted corner. Again, it was held that the zoning ordinance could not be used as a means of regulating competition, and the city was compelled to issue a permit for the construction of the §as station. One case of note in Minnesota is the case of Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., v. Village of Minnetonka, 162 N.W.2d 206 (1968). In this case, l~eg'eTe Outdoor X-~vert~s~ng Co., a billboard company, challenged a zoning ordinance adopted by the Village, which prohibited billboard signs from certain areas of the co~nunity, and required that existing billboards be removed from these areas within three years of the effective date of the ordinance. The billboard company sought a court order declaring the ordinance unconstitutional. They argued that the ordinance bore no reasonable relationship to the protection of the public health, safety, morals or general wel'fare of the 'community. The argument was that any zoning ordinance regulating billboards must be based only on aesthetics, and aesthetics were not a compelling enough factor to constitutionally justify the regulation of billboards. In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court took a very broad view of what furthered the general welfare of a conimunity and held that the ordinance did promote the general welfare. The court held: " A zoning regulation need not be a necessity, but need only be s~b~t~ntially related to promoting the general welfare of the community to meet the constitutional requirement of reasonableness." This broad definition of general welfare and broad reading of what promotes the health, safety, morals and general welfare has consistently been followed by the Minnesota Supreme Courts. C. Specific Constitutionality. By far, the most common challenge and most common reason for which zoning o~,~nances are invalidated, is because the ordinance is unconstitutional as a2plied to a specific piece of property. Two provisions of the constitution are particularly applicable. First, the constitution provides "!~t private property shall not be taken for public use without the payment concepts individually.