INFORMATION #1 02-22-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

land Use and Zoning - legal Review Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 2003 Page 8 Development. Inc. v. City of Apple Valley, 446 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. App., 1989). Although the burden on the landowner is high, in some circumstances the courts have found that there was no rational basis to support the denial of a proposed rezoning, and have ordered the rezoning approved. Communications Properties Inc. v. County of Steele, 506 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. App,. 1993). 2. Challenges to Rezoning Actions. On the other hand, a decision to rezone will be upheld unless opponents prove that the new classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Where a rational basis for the rezoning can be found in the record, the rezoning will be upheld. Krmpotich v. City of Duluth, 474 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. App., 1991); Reversed on other grounds, 483 N.W.2d 55 (Minn., 1991). The usual presumption of the validity attached to zoning amendments as legislative acts applies. State. by Rochester Ass'n. of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn., 1978). 3. Spot Zoning. The term "Spot Zoning" is applied to rezonings, typically of small parcels of land, which establish a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses, which create an island of non- conforming use within a larger zoned district, and which dramatically reduce the value of either the rezoned lot or the abutting property. State. by Rochester Ass'n. of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn., 1978). Although the Minnesota Courts have found that spot zoning is preferential treatment, piecemeal zoning, and the antithesis of planned zoning (Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn., 1984)); they have been very slow to invalidate a rezoning as a spot zoning, unless there is a total destruction or substantial diminution of the value of the property. Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, 267 Minn. 155, 125 N.W.2d 583. (1963). D. Public Hearing Procedure. The following suggestions for the conduct of public hearings in rezoning and other land use approvals are directed at those in the audience who are responsible for conducting public hearings on zoning issues. Although recommended for hearings on all types of zoning approvals, including the adoption and amendment of comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, these considerations are particularly relevant to hearings on rezonings, and to hearings on conditional use permits, variances and other quasi-judicial and administrative actions. 1. Notice. Be sure that all statutory requirements for notice are met. 2. Keep a record. The governing body should assure that a complete transcript of the public hearing can be prepared, if needed, for court review. Video tapes, if available, should be preserved for contested land use applications at least until it is clear that there will be no judicial proceedings If video tapes are not available, consideration should be given to having a court reporter transcribe the proceedings