Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Just as important, the 2004 Legislation provides that no <br /> <br /> <br />interim ordinance may extend the time deadline for agency <br /> <br /> <br />action set forth in Minn. Stat. S15.99 (the 60 day law) with <br />respect to any application filed prior to the effective date of <br />the Moratorium. This Section will eliminate a strategy <br />used frequently in municipalities. <br />2. Adoption. Although the statute talks about an "interim ordinance", <br /> <br />the Minnesota courts have allowed moratoria to be adopted by less <br /> <br />formal approaches, including resolutions and even internal <br /> <br />municipal communications. Wedemeyer v. City of Minneapolis, <br /> <br />540 N.W.2d 539 (Minn. App. 1995). Even when characterized by <br /> <br />the governing body as a "moratorium ordinance", the courts have <br /> <br />not required that the requirements for adoption of a zoning <br /> <br />ordinance be followed for the adoption of a moratorium. <br /> <br />Duncanson v. Board of Supervisors ofDanville Tp., 551 N.W.2d <br />248 (Minn. App., 1996). <br />3. Validity. The Minnesota courts have allowed local government <br />broad discretion in the adoption of moratoria. Both the Minnesota <br />courts and the Federal courts have found that ordinances which do <br /> <br />not allow for any use of a property for the moratorium period are <br /> <br />not constitutionally compensable takings. Woodbury Place <br /> <br />Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. App., <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />