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

Home Search

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