Laserfiche WebLink
upheld moratoria even if they only affect a single <br />proposed project. <br />(i) See Duncanson v. Bd, of Supe~visor~s of Danville <br />Twp., SS1 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) <br />("While it is true that the Duncansons' proposed <br />feedlot was the only project known to be affected <br />by the Danville Moratorium, Medical Services is <br />readily distinguishable on other grounds"). <br />(ii) In Ne Leisu~etime Land Co., 2002 WL 15795 at *2 <br />(Minn. Ct, App. 2002) ("If a moratorium is not <br />found to be arbitrary or discriminatory, it may be <br />upheld even though the proposed project is the <br />only one affected by the moratorium," (citing <br />Duncanson)) (unpublished). <br />d. In determining whether a freeze on applications is <br />arbitrary, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has more <br />recently focused on the value of preserving the status quo <br />pending further study of comprehensive zoning plans. <br />See Wedemeyer, 540 N. W.2d at 543. Borrowing the <br />standards for arbitrariness from zoning law, the Court of <br />Appeals in Wedemeyer required the applicant to show <br />that none of the rationales for the decision is reasonably <br />related to the promotion of the public health, safety, or <br />general welfare of the community. <br />e. The Court of Appeals' majority opinion in Pawn <br />~me~ica is consistent with this string of decisions. fudge <br />~tauber, in dissent, argued that the City's actions were <br />indistinguishable from those in ~edicaZ Services, but the <br />majority found the case "distinguishable" for the <br />fallowing reasons; <br />(i) "Unlike Med. Servs., the city did not know of <br />appellant's plans far in advance. Even though <br />appellant had interacted with various city <br />employees, the city council was not aware of the <br />proposed pawnshop until September. <br />12 <br />