Laserfiche WebLink
a. Similarly situated landowners must be treated the same. <br />b. Similarly situated refers to not only circumstances, but time. <br />c. When an equal protection challenge is asserted, the municipality must offer a <br />legitimate reason for distinction. <br />d. Illustrative cases showing these principles in action are Anderson v Douglas <br />County, 4 Fid 574 (8th Cir 1993); Barstad v. Murray County, 420 F.3' 880 (8th <br />Cir 2005); and Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 <br />(Minn. 1979). <br />2. Regulations cannot deny a property owner all economically viable use of property. <br />This stems from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which <br />states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just <br />compensation <br />a. Such a denial equals a "taking." <br />b. In Lundstrom v. Hubbard Co., the district court rejected a takings challenge to <br />shoreland substandard contiguous lot combination requirements in the Hubbard <br />County Shoreland Ordinance. <br />c. In Graham v. Itasca County, 601 N. W. 2d 461 (Minn. App 1999) the District <br />Court rejected a takings challenge to shoreland contiguous lot combination <br />requirements <br />d. In Lovrein v. City of Shorewood 1989 WL 29549 (Minn. App 1989) the <br />Minnesota Court of Appeals held that use of land in its natural state constituted a <br />reasonable use of property for purposes of a taking. analysis See Also Olsen v. <br />City of Ironton, 2001 WL 379010 (Minn. App. 2001). <br />e. In Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982), <br />the Court refected a takings challenge over the refusal to authorize a tower, <br />noting the land could still be used for agiiculture purposes or open -space <br />requirements. <br />3. Governmental action must be reasonable. <br />a. This limitation on governmental action is often referred to as "substantive due <br />process." <br />