Laserfiche WebLink
12. Offen municipalities act on moratoria in situations where an application is made, or <br />they become aware of a pending application, and put in place a moratorium that ends <br />up stopping the person or business from undertaking the use they had intended. <br />There is often a claim that these were actions taken in bad faith and solely to impede <br />the one development. One early case struck down a moratorium on that basis, <br />Medical Services Inc v City of Savage, 487 N.W. 2d 263 (Minn. App. 1992). <br />While that led some to claim you could not enact a moratorium in response to a <br />particular application, or apply a moratorium to a pending application, that has not <br />been and is not the law The Medical Services case is very specific to its facts, <br />unusual in its facts, and has not been the basis for other moratoriums to be declared <br />invalid. Instead what has happened is that it has now been clearly stated by our <br />courts that Court's have said that enacting an interim ordinance in response to a <br />particular license application does not, by itself, make the ordinance invalid. <br />Using a moratorium to impede a particular development while the situation is <br />studied is not a violation of the statute. Pawn America Minnesota, supra. A Court <br />looks at whether the interim ordinance is reasonably related to the planning process <br />and public health, safety and welfare. Preserving the status quo while studying a <br />particular situation is deemed to be acting in good faith. What courts do is examine <br />the particular facts, what action the municipality took, whether they followed <br />through on their study, how long the process took, etc., in deciding whether there <br />was a reasonable relationship between the interim ordinance and the planning <br />process. <br />D. Nonconformities. <br />1. A nonconformity is a use of property that was lawful at the time the use was <br />instituted but is no longer consistent with applicable official controls or zoning <br />regulations. <br />2. These uses are allowed to continue so that municipalities may amend their official <br />controls in ways that may be more restrictive than in the past Immediate <br />elimination of nonconforming uses would be considered a taking by the courts. <br />3. In most circumstances, municipalities may no longer adopt regulations that provide <br />for the gradual elimination, or what is called ` amortization," of nonconforming uses. <br />Over a decade ago the legislature amended Minn Stat. § 462.357 to prohibit such <br />amortization, except where it applies to adults -only book stores, adults -only theaters, <br />or similar adults -only businesses. <br />4. Cities have wide discretion to determine whether, and to what extent they will <br />peiniit enlargement of a nonconfoiniing use <br />17 <br />