Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 19 Case Note: In Stardust's state court action, the state courts entered a permanent injunction against Stardust, ordering it to cease and desist operating a sexual device shop in violation of the Code. As a matter of first impression (i.e., the first time the court ruled on the issue), the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the state court judgment did not have a preclusive ef- fect —under the doctrine of res judicata—on the federal court judgment here. The court said that it "would make no sense for an appeal front a district court order or judgment to be precluded simply because another court treated the order or judgment as having a conclusive effect." While the doctrine of res judicata prevents re -litigation of issues and claims already decided by a competent court, it "does not operate to bar direct review of a district court judgment, even if that judgment has been accorded res judicata effect by other courts since it was entered," said the court. Since Stardust was seeking direct review of the district court's judgment, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that res judicata did not bar it from considering Stardust's appeal. Fees/Authority—As condition for granting subdivision application, city requires developer pay "infrastructure charge" for roadway and intersection improvements Developer contends city lacks the statutory authority to impose such a charge Citation: Harstad v. City of Woodbury, 2018 WL 3868465 (Minn. 2018) MINNESOTA (08/15/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a statu- tory city can condition grant of an application for a subdivision on a developer's payment of an infrastructure charge representing an amount for "major roadway and intersection improvements" that would be "required to accommodate traffic generated by [the proposed development] and surrounding areas." More specifi- cally, the case addressed whether Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2a, authorizes a statutory city to impose an infrastructure charge for future road -improvement projects. The Background/Facts: In July 2015, Martin Harstad ("Harstad") submit- ted to the City of Woodbury (the "City") an application for approval to subdivide approximately 77 acres of land in the City for the purpose of developing a 183- unit residential community. Months later, the City sent Harstad a memorandum outlining proposed charges for the subdivision, including a $1,389,444 infrastructure charge. The infrastructure charge was identified as the amount to be paid for "[m]ajor roadway and intersection improvements..." which would be "required to accommodate traffic generated by [Harstad's proposed subdivi- sion] and surrounding areas." Before his subdivision application was completed, Harstad sued the City, © 2018 Thomson Reuters 5