Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />d) <br /> <br />and takings clauses of the Constitution. (See discussion <br />elsewhere in this manual.) <br /> <br />Limitations on Referendum. The Minnesota Court of <br /> <br />Appeals has held that the Municipal Planning Act and the <br /> <br />Metropolitan Planning Act evince the Legislature's intent <br /> <br />to occupy the field of the process by which municipal land <br /> <br />use and development laws are finally approved or <br /> <br />disapproved, and therefore pre-empt the right to petition <br /> <br />under local charter for a referendum to overturn a zoning <br /> <br />decision. Nordmarken v. City of Richfield, 641 N.W.2d <br />343 (Minn. App., 2002). <br /> <br />e) <br /> <br />Interpretation of Zoning Ordinances. Because zoning <br /> <br />ordinances restrict landowners in the exercise of their <br /> <br />common law right to lawfully use their property, zoning <br /> <br />ordinances are strictly construed by the courts. Where <br /> <br />doubt exists as to the intent ofthe enacting body, courts <br /> <br />will interpret zoning ordinances to favor the landowner and <br /> <br />disfavor any implied restriction on his property rights. <br /> <br />Zoning ordinances are construed according to the plain and <br /> <br />ordinary meaning of their terms; in favor of the property <br /> <br />owner; and in light of the ordinances' underlying goals. <br /> <br />See Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 276 Minn. 163, 149 N.W.2d <br />