My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 1
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2000-2005
>
2003
>
05-13-2003
>
Item 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2018 12:05:06 PM
Creation date
7/23/2018 12:05:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Land Use and Zoning-Legal Review <br /> Planning Commission Meeting <br /> May 13,2003 <br /> Page 16 <br /> • There has been considerable debate in the last three decades over the <br /> definition and existence of exclusionary zoning;the wisdom of <br /> pursuing the social goal of opening up suburbs for lower income <br /> housing through zoning policy; and the role of the courts in this <br /> debate. In 1975,the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of <br /> Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P.v.Mount Laurel Tp., 67 <br /> N.J.151, 336 A.2d 713, (1975). In this case,the court held that the <br /> township of Mount Laurel must, by its land use regulations,make <br /> realistically possible the opportunity for an appropriate variety of <br /> choice and housing for all categories of people who may desire to live <br /> there, including those of low and moderate income. The court <br /> required the township to permit multi-family housing,without <br /> bedroom or similar restrictions, as well as small dwellings on very <br /> small lots and other types of high density housing without artificial or <br /> unjustifiable minimum requirements as to lot size, building size and <br /> the like. <br /> In spite of rapidly rising housing costs in the Twin Cities <br /> Metropolitan Area,the Minnesota courts have not been called upon <br /> to specifically address an alleged exclusionary zoning situation. <br /> However,the Minnesota legislature has enacted a number of <br /> initiatives to address the issues raised by courts in other jurisdictions <br /> in exclusionary zoning cases,including efforts to promote affordable <br /> • housing through the Minnesota Livable Communities Act and <br /> through various amendments to the Land Planning Acts intended to <br /> make it easier to obtain approval for affordable housing, such as the <br /> removal of the super majority voting requirement for zoning <br /> decisions. <br /> D. Contract Zoning and Conditional Zoning <br /> 1. Generally. "Contract Zoning" is generally described as an agreement <br /> between a municipality and a landowner which includes a promise by <br /> the city to rezone land in accordance with the terms of the contract <br /> and a promise by the owner or developer to observe restrictions on <br /> the use of the land in consideration of the rezoning. Historically, <br /> such agreements have been found to be an illegal delegation or <br /> abrogation of the police power and invalid. However,in more recent <br /> years, courts have been more open to such agreements,particularly in <br /> the planned unit development context. "Conditional Zoning", on <br /> the other hand,has found more favor with the courts. Conditional <br /> zoning is where land is zoned, or rezoned, on condition that the <br /> landowner or developer comply with certain conditions, such as the <br /> completion of specified work on the land to be rezoned,payment of <br /> fees, etc. <br /> The concepts of contract zoning and conditional zoning have <br /> received very little mention in Minnesota judicial decisions.Where <br /> • the issue has arisen at all,the courts have seemed to implicitly <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.