Laserfiche WebLink
immediately to an application for an unforeseen abuse of its <br />zoning laws by simply changing the law. <br />2. While there may be limits under Interstate Power on the <br />authority of cities to change the law for the sole reason of <br />positioning itself to deny a particular permit application, the <br />Medical Services decision demonstrates that those limitations <br />do not go away through the adoption o£ a moratorium, but <br />perhaps exist to an even greater degree. <br />~, A.t least two important reasons exist for m.aratoria, notwithstanding <br />these sweeping powers; <br />1. First, from a planning point of view, a moratorium is often <br />precisely what the city needs, because the accompanying study <br />will better inform the process of reconsidering and revising its <br />laws. <br />a. Cities often adopt moratoria precisely because theix <br />objectives extend beyond blocking a particular project. <br />2. Second, a moratorium is often needed to provide a legal <br />foundation for a city to deny an application prior to the <br />expiration of the mandatory deadlines for action under <br />Minnesota's "automatic approval" statute, Minn. Stat. § 15.99. <br />a. If a moratorium is already in effect before an application <br />is filed, there's no serious question that the application <br />can be denied based on the moratorium, so long as it is <br />denied within 6Q days (or 120 days if the city has <br />exercised its option to extend the deadline under Minn. <br />Stat. § 15.99). <br />(i) A district court judge in Ramsey County has drawn <br />a distinction between refraining ruling on an <br />application because of a moratorium, and denying <br />an application because of a moratorium. The first <br />results in automatic approval under § 15.99, but the <br />second does not. DeLite Outdoor Advertising, 1'nc, <br />v. City of St. Paul, Ramsey County District Ct. File <br />No. C6-O1-824 (Minn. Dist Ct. Feb. 5, 2002). <br />1~ <br />