Item 12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES County of Freeborn v. While these uses must be allowed to continue, the zoning Clausen,295 Minn.96,203 ordinance may prohibit them from being expanded, extended N.W.2d 323(1972). and rebuilt, which places restrictions and limitations on their ability to exist over time and makes their eventual elimination more likely. County of Isanti v.Peterson, Another permissible method of restricting non-conforming 469 N.W.2d 467(Minn.App. uses is a zoning ordinance that requires loss of non- 1991). conforming use status if the use has ceased operation for one year. However, the property owner may show that they did not intend to abandon the use, or that it was beyond their control. Finally, a process called"amortization"may be used to phase Naegele Outdoor Advertising out non-conforming uses over a period of time. Amortization Co. v.Village of Minnetonka, has been usedrinci all with billboards, although under state 281 Minn.492, 162 N.W.2d p p y ou g 206(1968). law the removal of billboards usually requires compensation. Minn.Stat.§173.17(4). The "taking" issue The Minnesota Constitution states, in Article 1,Section 13, that"[p]rivate property shall not be taken,destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefore first paid or secured." • Historically,courts have interpreted the takings clauses of both the U.S. and various state constitutions to apply to situations where private property is interfered with in some actual, physical manner. Landowners have also been successful in persuading courts to allow the extension of this constitutional prohibition application to city land use regulations. This is called a regulatory taking because the property is not physically taken by government. Practically speaking, some people affected by a city's land use decisions may claim that a land use ordinance, by restricting their use of their personal property,has resulted in the taking of their property for which they must be compensated. Cities enact zoning ordinances based on their police powers Los Angeles City Council v. that allow them to reasonably promote the public health, Taxpayers for Vincent,466 U.S.789, 104 S.Ct.2118 safety, morals and welfare, and which may also include (1984). protecting the appearance of their community. Penn Central Transportation Generally,no taking occurs where the city's land use Co. v.New York City,438 U.S. regulation is reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate 104,98 S.a.2646(1978). government purpose. 390 •