INFORMATION #1 02-22-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

land Use and Zoning - legal Review Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 2003 Page 6 landowners. See Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 276 Minn. 163, 149 N.W.2d 394 (1967); Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Association v. Paster, 437 N.W.2d 52 (Minn., 1989); Pilgrim v. City of Winona, 256 N.W.2d 266 (Minn., 1977). Strict compliance with the statutory voting requirements is also required. See A.G. Op. 59a-32. Gan. 25,2002). b) Statutory Limitations. Minnesota law contains a number of limitations on the exercise of the zoning power, including limitations with respect to manufactured housing, group homes, nonconforming uses and amortization (see below), and others. With respect to some uses, federal law imposes limitations on local zoning ordinances. Examples include the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIP A"). RLUIP A provides that no government may impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, unless the government can show the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive of furthering that interest. The first reported case to address the constitutionality of RLUIP A upheld the statute. Freedom Baptist Church of Delaware County v. Township of Middletown, 204 F.Supp.2d 857 (B.D. Pa 2002). c) Constitutional Limitations. Zoning ordinances also may not violate the State or Federal Constitutions. Constitutional challenges typically involve the due process and takings clauses of the Constitution. (See discussion elsewhere in this manual.) d) Interpretation of Zoning Ordinances. Because zoning ordinances restrict landowners in the exercise of their common law right to lawfully use their property, zoning ordinances are stricdy construed by the courts. Where doubt exists as to the intent of the enacting body, courts will interpret zoning ordinances to favor the landowner and disfavor any implied restriction on his property rights. Zoning ordinances are construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning of their terms; in favor of the property owner; and in light of the ordinances' underlying goals. See Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 276 Minn. 163, 149 N.W.2d 394 (1967); Frank's Nursery Sales. Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604 (Minn., 1980). Therefore, it is important that zoning ordinances be clear and be adopted in strict compliance with the statutory requirements.