Laserfiche WebLink
Land Use and Zoning-Legal Review <br /> Planning Commission Meeting <br /> May 13,2003 <br /> Page 8 <br /> • Development, Inc. v.City of Apple Valley,446 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. <br /> App., 1989). Although the burden on the landowner is high,in some <br /> circumstances the courts have found that there was no rational basis <br /> to support the denial of a proposed rezoning, and have ordered the <br /> rezoning approved. Communications Properties Inc. v. County of <br /> Steele, 506 N.W.2d 670 (Minn.App,. 1993). <br /> 2. Challenges to Rezoning Actions. On the other hand, a decision to <br /> rezone will be upheld unless opponents prove that the new <br /> classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to <br /> promoting public health, safety,morals or general welfare. Where a <br /> rational basis for the rezoning can be found in the record,the <br /> rezoning will be upheld. Krmpotich v.City of Duluth,474 N.W.2d <br /> 392 (Minn.App., 1991);Reversed on other grounds, 483 N.W.2d 55 <br /> (Minn., 1991). The usual presumption of the validity attached to <br /> zoning amendments as legislative acts applies. State, by Rochester <br /> Ass'n. of Neighborhoods v.City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 <br /> (Minn., 1978). <br /> 3. Spot Zoning. The term"Spot Zoning" is applied to rezonings, <br /> typically of small parcels of land,which establish a use classification <br /> inconsistent with surrounding uses,which create an island of non- <br /> conforming use within a larger zoned district, and which dramatically <br /> reduce the value of either the rezoned lot or the abutting property. <br /> • State,by Rochester Ass'n. of Neighborhoods v.City of Rochester, <br /> 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn., 1978). Although the Minnesota Courts have <br /> found that spot zoning is preferential treatment,piecemeal zoning, <br /> and the antithesis of planned zoning(Amcon Corp.v.City of Eagan, <br /> 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn., 1984));they have been very slow to invalidate <br /> a rezoning as a spot zoning,unless there is a total destruction or <br /> substantial diminution of the value of the property. Alexander v.City <br /> of Minneapolis, 267 Minn. 155, 125 N.W.2d 583. (1963). <br /> D. Public Hearing Procedure. The following suggestions for the conduct of <br /> public hearings in rezoning and other land use approvals are directed at those <br /> in the audience who are responsible for conducting public hearings on <br /> zoning issues. Although recommended for hearings on all types of zoning <br /> approvals, including the adoption and amendment of comprehensive plans <br /> and zoning ordinances,these considerations are particularly relevant to <br /> hearings on rezonings, and to hearings on conditional use permits,variances <br /> and other quasi-judicial and administrative actions. <br /> 1. Notice. Be sure that all statutory requirements for notice are met. <br /> 2. Keep a record. The governing body should assure that a complete <br /> transcript of the public hearing can be prepared,if needed, for court <br /> review. Video tapes, if available, should be preserved for contested <br /> land use applications at least until it is clear that there will be no <br /> judicial proceedings If video tapes are not available, consideration <br /> • should be given to having a court reporter transcribe the proceedings <br />