INFORMATION #1 02-22-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Land Use and Zoning - Legal Review Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 2003 Page 16 There has been considerable debate in the last three decades over the definition and existence of exclusionary zoning; the wisdom of pursuing the social goal of opening up suburbs for lower income housing through zoning policy; and the role of the courts in this debate. In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Tp., 67 N.J.151, 336 A.2d 713, (1975). In this case, the court held that the township of Mount Laurel must, by its land use regulations, make realistically possible the opportunity for an appropriate variety of choice and housing for all categories of people who may desire to live there, including those of low and moderate income. The court required the township to permit multi-family housing, without bedroom or similar restrictions, as well as small dwellings on very small lots and other types of high density housing without artificial or unjustifiable minimum requirements as to lot size, building size and the like. In spite of rapidly rising housing costs in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, the Minnesota courts have not been called upon to specifically address an alleged exclusionary zoning situation. However, the Minnesota legislature has enacted a number of initiatives to address the issues raised by courts in other jurisdictions in exclusionary zoning cases, including efforts to promote affordable housing through the Minnesota Livable Communities Act and through various amendments to the Land Planning Acts intended to make it easier to obtain approval for affordable housing, such as the removal of the super majority voting requirement for zoning decisions. D. Contract Zoning and Conditional Zoning 1. Generally. "Contract Zoning" is generally described as an agreement between a municipality and a landowner which includes a promise by the city to rezone land in accordance with the terms of the contract and a promise by the owner or developer to observe restrictions on the use of the land in consideration of the rezoning. Historically, such agreements have been found to be an illegal delegation or abrogation of the police power and invalid. However, in more recent years, courts have been more open to such agreements, particularly in the planned unit development context. "Conditional Zoning", on the other hand, has found more favor with the courts. Conditional zoning is where land is zoned, or rezoned, on condition that the landowner or developer comply with certain conditions, such as the completion of specified work on the land to be rezoned, payment of fees, etc. The concepts of contract zoning and conditional zoning have received very little mention in Minnesota judicial decisions. Where the issue has arisen at all, the courts have seemed to implicirly