|
.�;;:�
<br /> rq:'., »pj .
<br /> -��j::�;�� § 462.377 t�[.��v�v[tiTc:. zo�v[ti�c � . .
<br /> ��'�'c:�'� Note 5 I L.1ti\I\G, 'l,Oti
<br /> :' '•y-._
<br /> `��"�"�``;2 less circumscribed by judicial oversight when it G. Dtulti-family uses
<br /> "r�'�:'-%�-� � � a�;ricultural lanr
<br /> ;,`L�-;�;_, considers zonin�; or rezon�ng than when it com ht.S.A. §y 245.51;,, subd. 4 and �f...3�7, subd. families of all incr�,.
<br /> �. ,� �.� siders a special use permit or variance. Honn v. 8 permit residential facilities licensed bt' Depart-
<br /> , City of Coon Rapids, 1981, 313 N.�V.2d 409. ment of Human Services and housin� between ��'��'�t;�, �torm dr..
<br /> :/.:f!�:.:�
<br /> ���`>"-'�:'� S[andard of review of rezonin matters �S seven to 1G persons to occupy lawful noncocr facilitie�, a munici
<br /> '��'�-�� whether the classification is reasonably related forming multi-family uses in districts zoned as ;�tndarGs, require:'
<br /> ;?�&r'1�r, sin�;te familv and local zoninq authority may� not subdivi3ions. The
<br /> w;.; <� to promotion of public health, safety, morals or
<br /> ;�����t restrict facility to Iess than 16 persons. Op.
<br /> �`�;�, general welfare. Id. applicabla onit' to.
<br /> �``�.
<br /> Atty.Gen. No. 4776-3d, April 2:i, 19S5. uniform for e3ch c:
<br /> � �.�%+� Tria! court properly relied on statutory classi-
<br /> ` '�'`� fication of rou home as a sin rle-famil use for 7• Estoppel
<br /> b P 6 Y A municipalit}• Ii�:
<br /> �44 zoning purposes and its denial of a temporary In property owner's prosecution for city zon- uninCorporated terr
<br /> injunction against construction of group home �ng ordinance violation involving construction of
<br /> x��Y was not an abuse of discretion. Costley v. Caro- �uilding for storage of construction equipment town «•hich has a
<br /> �.=��, on his property, trial court erred in ruling that noncontiguous muc.
<br /> min House, Inc., 1981, 313 N.W.2d 21. pp g rized to control ttie
<br /> .:�y�t city could not be esto ed from enforcin its :
<br /> City council's amendment of zoning ordinance zoning ordinance as matter of law; thus, proper- �'
<br /> with respect to a single 1.18 acre tract of land ty owner, who alleged that city building depart- r Subd. 2. Repeal
<br /> involved a legislative judgment, and thus was ment employees knew of building's intended use `
<br /> - y- subject to review under the narrow scope of but had approved its construction nevertheless, ;� Subd. 2a_ Term
<br /> �, judicial review applicable to action in legislative µ'� entitled to evidentiary hearing on estoppel may address �vitho
<br /> capacity, despite contention that such rezoning claim; calling into doubt Fr¢nk's Nursery � structures, public a:
<br /> should be subject to close judicial scrutiny as an S¢les, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604 :� storm drainage, lig
<br /> administrative or quasi-judicial act State, by S¢�e, 349 N.Wk2d 575e(M nn App.). Statz design of sites; ac
<br /> Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of City of Eden Prairie v. Liepke, App.1987, 403 � P�ains, shore lands,
<br /> Rochester, 1978, 268 N.W2d 885. N.W2d 252. - � features. The regt
<br /> In order to successfully challenge a city coun- Evidence that town board gave fur farmer '� pality's official ma�.
<br /> cil decision when it acts within its legislative applying for specia] use permit additional time � with other offiCial
<br /> capacity,proof must be submitted to affirmative- and opportunity to attempt to control obnoxious : certain classes or k
<br /> ly establish either an unconstitutional taking or odors emanating from fur farm, and that fur. '. comprehensive plar
<br /> an action in excess of the powers delegated to farmer was issued building permit for construc- ' agricultural lands.
<br /> the legislative body. Czech v. City of Blaine, tion of permanent housing for the animals and � purpose of protecti.
<br /> 1977, 312 Minn. 535, 253 N.W.2d 272. conshvcted fences and covering for animals in .= The regulations ma
<br /> response to town board's requests that fur farm- ' develo ment for
<br /> When city council acts on a rezoning applica- tt�
<br /> tion, it exercises a legislative power.and judicial er control odor did not render ultimate denial of P
<br /> review is narrow. Id. fur farmer's application for special use permit to mined undergrot
<br /> raise fur bearing animals so highly inequitable ; access thereto. 'i..
<br /> Failure of governing body to record contempo- and unjust, therefore unreasonable and arbi- tracts, lots, or parc
<br /> raneously the facts and legally sufficient rea- trary, as to -estop town board fmm denying `° The regulations ma-
<br /> sons for its denial of special-use permit consti- special use permit Rockville Tp. v. Lang, App. .. and installation of s
<br /> tutes a prima facie showing of arbitrariness in 1986, 38? N:W.2d 260. � utilities and improvc
<br /> the denial. Holasek v. Village of Medina, 1975, 8 K,�dth of build;ngs . deposit, certified ch�
<br /> 303 Minn. 240, 226 N.W.2d 900. •' ' •
<br /> Provision of subd. 1 of this section giving and conditions suff:
<br /> Where nothing more appears than that the municipality authority to regulate width of build- : �vill be constructed
<br /> council denied the application of a special-use ings granted city authority to regulate width of :' regulations may per
<br /> permit after hearing before and upon recommen- mobile homes and residential structures for pro- ` requirements reaso
<br /> dation of its planning commission, there is no tection of pmperty 'values. City of Bemidji v. development contra<
<br /> sufficient evidentiary basis for court to infer Beighley, App.1987, 410 N.W.2d 338.
<br /> that the counciPs action was reached upon a may enforce such a;
<br /> consideration of the facts and was based upon 9. Procedural requirements
<br /> Zonin ordinance on width of residential struc- . Subd. 2b. Dedic
<br /> reason rather than upon the mere individual g
<br /> whim of the council members. Id. - tures was not adopted pursuant to this sectiods : proposed subdivisio
<br /> Where.reasonableness of zonin ordinance is required prceedures;where no notice was given .I roads, sewers, elect
<br /> g for public hearing, where no public hearing was. or-ponds and simila
<br /> debatabie or where opinions differ as to desira- held, and where city council acted on ordinance.
<br /> bility of restriction it imposes, courts aze not to without waiting for planning commission report In addition, the r
<br /> interfere with legislative discretion. FYeeborn or lapse of 60 days.from date that amendment .; subdivision be dedic
<br /> County v. Claussen, 1972, 295 Minn. 96, 203 was submitted to commission. City of Bemidji v. . trdils, or open sp4
<br /> N.W.2d 323. Beighley, App1987, 410 N.W.2d 338. equivalent amount i;
<br /> dedicated to such pt
<br /> �62.358. Procedure for plan effectuation; subdivision regulations• . - later than at the tin.
<br /> Subd. 1. Repealed by'Iaws 1980, c. 566, § 35. a special fund by t}.
<br /> obtained, (c) in esta
<br /> Subd. la. Authority. To protect and promote the public health, safety, and general . consider the open :
<br /> welfare, to pro��ide for the orderly, economic, and safe development of land, to preserve applicant proposes
<br /> 130
<br />
|