Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />1992); Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional <br />Planning Agency, 122 S.Ct. 1465, 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (2002). <br />Although Minnesota municipalities have broad authority to enact <br />moratoria, that authority is not unlimited. The municipality must <br />exercise its authority for the purpose of protecting the planning <br />process and may not arbitrarily enact an interim moratorium <br /> <br /> <br />ordinance to delay or prevent a single project. Medical Services, <br /> <br />Inc. v. City of Savage, 487 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. App., 1992); City <br /> <br /> <br />of Crystal v. Fantasy House, Inc., 569 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. App., <br /> <br /> <br />1997). Also, as noted above, a municipality may no longer adopt a <br /> <br /> <br />Moratorium applicable to a project for which an application has <br /> <br /> <br />already been filed, pursuant to the 2004 amendment to ~462.355 <br /> <br /> <br />Subd. 4. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />C. Exclusionary Zoning. <br />1. "Exclusionary Zoning" refers to the array of local zoning practices <br /> <br />which, singly or in combination, results in the exclusion of housing <br /> <br />for low and moderate income groups from the suburban <br /> <br />communities where most of the growth in employment <br /> <br />opportunities has occurred in the past several decades. <br /> <br />Exclusionary zoning practices and devices include such things as: <br /> <br />exclusion of multiple family dwellings; restrictions on the number <br /> <br />of bedrooms in multiple family dwellings; exclusion of mobile <br /> <br />. <br />