Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />a) <br /> <br />Compliance with Procedural Requirements. The courts <br /> <br />have generally required strict compliance with procedural <br /> <br />requirements, such as requirements for notice to and/or <br /> <br /> <br />consent of adjoining landowners. See Olsen v. City of <br /> <br />Hopkins, 276 Minn. 163, 149 N.W.2d 394 (1967); Glen <br /> <br /> <br />Paul Court Neighborhood Association v. Paster, 437 <br /> <br /> <br />N.W.2d 52 (Minn., 1989); Pilgrim v. City of Winona, 256 <br /> <br /> <br />N.W.2d 266 (Minn., 1977); 2600 University Inn. LLC v. <br /> <br /> <br />City of Minneapolis, 556 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. App., 1996). <br /> <br /> <br />Strict compliance with the statutory voting requirements is <br /> <br />also required. See A.G. Op. 59a-32. (Jan. 25, 2002). <br /> <br /> <br />Statutory Limitations. Minnesota law contains a number of <br /> <br /> <br />limitations on the exercise of the zoning power, including <br /> <br /> <br />limitations with respect to manufactured housing, group <br /> <br /> <br />homes (see Costley v. Caromin House. Inc. 313 N.W.2d 21 <br /> <br /> <br />(Minn., 1981), nonconforming uses and amortization (see <br /> <br /> <br />below), and others. With respect to some uses, federal law <br /> <br /> <br />imposes limitations on local zoning ordinances. Examples <br /> <br />include the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Religious <br /> <br /> <br />Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 <br /> <br />b) <br /> <br />("RLUIP A"). <br />