6.6. SR 03-15-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

County acted with the "sole purpose" of preventing Offen from staring construction until the comprehensive rezoning could be enacted); Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. Czty of Hollywood, 329 So.2d 10, 16-17 (Fla. 1976) (sole purpose of city's arbitrary and lengthy delay was to undercut the economic feasibility of afive-million-dollar development project). b. However, a moratorium passed in response to, but not for the sole purpose of delaying, a single project is not necessarily invalid or in bad faith. For example, in TPW, Inc. v. City of New Hope, 388 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. Ct. App. 196), the Court of Appeals held that the city's moratorium on new development--enacted only a couple weeks after plaintiff applied for a conditional use permit to construct afast-food restauz~ant--was valid and was not solely for the purpose of blocking construction of this particular restaurant. (i) In TPYV, even though the city took action based on a proposal for a specific development and the record did not support all of the city's concerns about the project, the court nevertheless decided the council's actions were not solely a subterfuge to block the fast-food restaurant. Rather, it stated that "[a] moratorium ordinance is a valuable tool to keep open a municipality's planning options." Id. at 394 (citing Almquist); see also Relay Improvement Association, v. Sycamore Realty Ca., Inc., 661 A.2d 182 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995) (to find that the local government acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner, the factfinder must conclude that the government officials were deliberately calculated to deny a property owner his right to use this land in a currently lawful manner; naked intent to delay development is not suff cient) (citing Medical Services and Almquast). c. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has restricted the scope of the Medical Servzces decision to its facts, and has I~