Laserfiche WebLink
Nobles County Bd. of Commis, 617 N.W.2d 566, 577 <br />(Minn. 2000). In so ruling, the Supreme Court noted that <br />local zoning authorities do not have "carte blanche to <br />arbitrarily block otherwise lawfiil development by the <br />passage of a new zoning law." 1'd. at 576. <br />(i) However, the Supreme Court limited its holding by <br />noting that "it is not just any litigation or any <br />legislation that we address, Rather, it is only <br />litigation in the unusual posture of a remand <br />limited [to making additional findings because the <br />first set were inadequate to permit judicial review], <br />and it is only legislative action for which the only <br />expressed purpose is to affect that limited <br />remand." 1'd. at 579 n.8. <br />b. The same principle was applied by the Minnesota Court <br />of Appeals even when there was no court remand, where <br />a city gave no explanation for its enactment of the new <br />ordinance, and it acknowledged that its sole purpose was <br />to defeat the plaintiff's permit. Northern States Power <br />Co. v. City of Mendota Heights, 646 N.W.2d 919, 927 <br />(Minn. Ct. App. 2002). <br />c. However, there are limits to this doctrine. Zn In ~e <br />.~~isu~e~'im~ Lanai Co,, 200 ~ 15~9~ ~1Vrinn. fit, A.pp, <br />~002~, the court of Appeals found the applicant's <br />reliance on Inter~stat~ Po~ve~ "misplaced," noting that <br />"the county did not attempt to amend an ordinance in <br />order to rescind approval of a previously approved <br />project," The ~aurt limited the holding of Intestate <br />Paw~r to the "particular circumstances" o~'that case, That <br />balding is that a local zoning authority "could nat, when <br />directed on remand to e~.plai~a its rationale ~'or imposing <br />certain conditions on a conditional use permit, amend a <br />zoning ordinance and deny the permit altogether on the <br />basis afthe newly enacted ordinance." rd, at ~~, <br /> <br />