Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />uniformly on all persons similarly situated, it will be <br /> <br /> <br />upheld. Kiges v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 <br /> <br /> <br />N.W.2d 363 (1953); Connor v. Chanhassen Tp., 249 Minn. <br /> <br /> <br />205,81 N.W.2d 789 (1957); Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, <br /> <br />313 N.W.2d409 (Minn., 1981). <br /> <br /> <br />C. Rezoning. The authorization and procedures for acting on rezonings are <br /> <br /> <br />identical to those set forth above for zoning ordinance adoption and <br /> <br /> <br />amendments. Rezonings are also considered by the Minnesota courts to <br /> <br /> <br />be a legislative act of the governing body, and therefore entitled to great <br /> <br /> <br />deference from the courts. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Requests for Rezoning. The original classification of a property is <br /> <br />presumed to be well planned and intended to be more or less <br /> <br />permanent. The burden is therefore on the property owner seeking <br /> <br />a rezoning to show either some mistake in the original zoning, or <br /> <br />that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an <br /> <br />extent that no reasonable use can be made of the property in its <br /> <br />current zoning classification. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 <br /> <br /> <br />N.W.2d 409 (Minn., 1981). Even though there may be a significant <br /> <br /> <br />change in the character of the neighborhood, such change in itself <br /> <br /> <br />will not compel a rezoning absent probative evidence that no <br /> <br /> <br />reasonable use can be made of the property in its current zoning <br /> <br />classification. Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. <br />