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

Home Search

16 c. The “municipality has scheduled a hearing” for the purpose of adopting or amending a comprehensive guide plan or zoning ordinance; and/or d. The municipality has “annexed new territory” for which there are no existing plans or controls. For a County, this could be a planned annexation. 6. In a case decided a number of years ago, the court held that in a city, no special public notice is required for the consideration and/or adoption of an interim ordinance, as the court held that an interim ordinance is not an official control. See Duncanson v. Danville Township, 551 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. App. 1996). 7. For an in-depth discussion of the law relating to moratoria, see Pawn America v. City of St. Louis Park, 787 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 2010). 8. The initial moratorium ordinance is effective for a period up to one year in both counties and cities. A county can extend the moratorium ordinance up to one additional year. Under limited circumstances, a city can extend the moratorium ordinance an additional 18 months. 9. The law, as construed by the courts, allows a County to decide whether a moratorium applies to pending applications or not. For cities and towns, an amendment to the Statute states that no interim ordinance may halt a subdivision that has already received preliminary approval. It also now says that the interim ordinance does not extend the time deadline set forth Minn. Stat. § 15.99 with respect to any application filed before the effective date of the interim ordinance. 10. The most significant early case on interim ordinances and moratoria arose in a dispute involving a Township before the Municipal Planning Act had a provision on interim ordinances (before Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd. 4 was added). The court held that under general principles conferring on municipalities broad police powers, they had the authority to adopt moratorium ordinances of limited duration provided they are enacted “in good faith and without discrimination.” See Almquist, supra. In Wedemeyer v. City of Minneapolis, 540 N.W. 2d 539 (Minn. App. 1995) the court held that the passage of the interim ordinance provision in the Municipal Planning Act did not supersede or do away with the ability of a municipality to enact a moratorium under the general police power referred to in Almquist. 11. The requirement that the municipality act in good faith and without discrimination articulated in Almquist has survived. The Pawn America court indicated that the statutory language that states that such an ordinance is to be passed for purposes of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the community is a good faith requirement.