INFORMATION #1 02-22-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

land Use and Zoning - legal Review Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 2003 Page I 5 subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective, and may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not exceed a total additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay or impede a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. 2. Adoption. Although the statute talks about an "interim ordinance", the Minnesota courts have allowed moratoria to be adopted by less formal approaches, including resolutions and even internal municipal communications. Wedemeyer v. City of Minneapolis, 540 N.W.2d 539 (Minn. App. 1995). Even when characterized by the governing body as a "moratorium ordinance", the courts have not required that the requirements for adoption of a zoning ordinance be followed for the adoption of a moratorium. Duncanson v. Board of Supervisors of Danville Tp., 551 N.W.2d 248 (I\1inn. App., 1996). 3. Validity. The Minnesota courts have allowed local government broad discretion in the adoption of moratoria. Both the Minnesota courts and the Federal courts have found that ordinances which do not allow for any use of a property for the moratorium period are not constitutionally compensable takings. Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. App., 1992); Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council. Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 122 S.Ct. 1465, 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (2002). Although Minnesota municipalities have broad authority to enact moratoria, that authority is not unlimited. The municipality must exercise its authority for the purpose of protecting the planning process and may not arbitrarily enact an interim moratorium ordinance to delay or prevent a single project. Medical Services. Inc. v. City of Savage, 487 N.W.2d 263 (I\1inn. App., 1992); City of Crystal v. Fantasy House. Inc., 569 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. App., 1997). C. Exclusionary Zoning. 1. "Exclusionary Zoning" refers to the array of local zoning practices which, singly or in combination, results in the exclusion of housing for low and moderate income groups from the suburban communities where most of the growth in employment opportunities has occurred in the past several decades. Exclusionary zoning practices and devices include such things as: exclusion of multiple family dwellings; restrictions on the number of bedrooms in multiple family dwellings; exclusion of mobile homes; and minimum building and lot size requirements. Large lot zoning, in particular, has been found to have an impact on housing costs.