03/10/2021 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

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