Laserfiche WebLink
October 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 19 Zoning Bulletin <br />that a city may impose under this statute but that were not explicitly identified <br />in the. provision." But, because the court construed the statute "to give effect to <br />all its provisions," the court refused to read the final paragraph of Minn. Stat. <br />§ 462.358, subd. 2a, as authorizing a power that was not authorized in the other <br />paragraphs. In other words, because the statute did not authorize a statutory city <br />to condition subdivision approval on an infrastructure charge, the court <br />concluded that such a condition could not be memorialized in a contract. <br />Case Note: <br />Importantly, the charge at issue here differs from the "traditional street assessment" <br />provided for in Minn. Stat. §§ 429.021 and 429.051. "It is undisputed that cities have the <br />authority to assess property for road and street improvements and that these assessments <br />are specifically permitted by state law." (Minn. Stat. §§ 429.021, subd. 1(1), 429.051. <br />Here, however, the City relied exclusively on city -ordinance provisions and Minn. Stat. <br />§ 462.358, subd. 2a, as authority for the infrastructure charge; it did not rely on chapter <br />429 of the Minnesota Statutes. <br />Rezoning/Referendum--City <br />residents challenge by referendum a <br />zoning ordinance amendment that <br />would have brought the ordinance <br />into compliance with the city's <br />general plan <br />City seeks to remove referendum from ballot, arguing that <br />referendum would "enact" an invalid zoning ordinance <br />inconsistent with the city's general plan in violation of state <br />law <br />Citation: City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey, 5 Cal. 5th 1068, 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d <br />835, 423 P.3d 960 (Cal. 2018) <br />CALIFORNIA (08/23/18)—This case addressed the issue of "whether the <br />people of a county or city may challenge by referendum a zoning ordinance <br />amendment that would bring the ordinance into compliance with a change to <br />the county's or city's general plan, even though such a referendum would <br />temporarily leave in place a zoning ordinance that does not comply with the <br />general plan." <br />The Background/Facts: California state law requires cities and counties to <br />develop general land use plans that function as charters for all future land use in <br />that county or city. California state law further requires zoning ordinances to be <br />consistent with the general plan of the county or city. (See Gov. Code § 65860, <br />8 ©2018 Thomson Reuters <br />