Item 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Land Use and Zoning—Legal Review Planning Commission Meeting May 13,2003 Page 7 II5. Standards for Judicial Review. a) Notwithstanding the limitations set forth above,local government has very broad discretion with respect to the adoption and amendment of zoning ordinances. The adoption of a zoning ordinance is a legislative act of local government. Courts will generally not interfere with the legislative discretion and policy decisions of a local governing body. Denny v.City of Duluth,295 Minn. 22, 202 N.W.2d 892 (1972); Sun Oil Co.v.Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326,220 N.W.2d 256 (1974). In determining the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance,the courts will presume that the governing body investigated and found conditions necessary for enactment of the proposed legislation,will presume that the legislation is constitutional, and will shift the burden of proving an ordinance unconstitutional to the party attacking its validity. If a zoning ordinance is not clearly unreasonable and arbitrary,is supported by a rational basis, and operates uniformly on all persons similarly situated, it will be upheld. Kiges v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 N.W.2d 363 (1953);City of St. Paul v. Dalsin,245 Minn. 325, 71 N.W.2d 855 (1955); Connor v.Chanhassen Tp„ 249 Minn. 205, 81 N.W.2d 789 • (1957). C. Rezoning. The authorization and procedures for acting on rezonings are identical to those set forth above for zoning ordinance adoption and amendments. Rezonings are also considered by the Minnesota courts to be a legislative act of the governing body,and therefore entitled to great deference from the courts. 1. Requests for Rezoning. The original classification of a property is presumed to be well planned and intended to be more or less permanent. The burden is therefore on the property owner seeking a rezoning to show either some mistake in the original zoning,or that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent that no reasonable use can be made of the property in its current zoning classification. Honn v.City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn., 1981). Even though there may be a significant change in the character of the neighborhood, such change in itself will not compel a rezoning absent probative evidence that no reasonable use can be made of the property in its current zoning classification. Sun Oil Co.v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 220 N.W.2d 256 (1974). The courts have held that the denial of a request for rezoning is a legislative act which must be upheld unless the existing classification is not supported by any rational basis related to the public health, safety or welfare. Kehr v.City of Roseville,426 N.W.2d 233 (Minn.App., 1988);Freundshuh v.City of Blaine, 385 N.W.2d 6 (Minn.,App. 1986); St.Croix II