Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />metropolitan area must be in conformance with an adopted <br /> <br />comprehensive plan. However, comprehensive plan <br /> <br />consistency, or the lack thereof, is a legitimate issue with <br /> <br />respect to any land use approval. A community which has <br /> <br />brought its zoning ordinance and other official controls into <br /> <br />conformance with its comprehensive plan will have the <br /> <br />strongest case for supporting its land use decisions in the <br /> <br />courts. <br /> <br />A number of judicial decisions have found inconsistency <br /> <br />with a comprehensive plan to be a legally sufficient reason <br /> <br />for denial of a proposed rezoning. See City of <br /> <br />Moundsview v. Johnson 377 N.W.2d476, 478 (Minn. App., <br />1985); Campion v. County of Wright 347 N.W.2d289 <br />(Minn. App., 1984). Conversely, refusal to zone according <br />to the comprehensive plan "is evidence that the City is <br />acting in an arbitrary manner". Arncon Corp. v. City of <br />Eagan, 348 N.W.2d66 (Minn., 1984). In the Arncon case <br />the Minnesota Supreme Court found that the City's failure <br />to advance any rationale or have any justification for <br />refusing to follow the comprehensive plan was arbitrary <br />and capricious and ordered a rezoning consistent with the <br /> <br />comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />