Agenda Packets - 1999/11/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 470 Pillsbury Center i 1<f'1111€tIV 200 South Sixth Street J Minneapolis MN 55402 " ' ' (612)337-9300 telephone 1!'11-'_i l 9 (612) ;37-9310 fax c FI A -. e p http:/fwuw.kcnnedy-grtven.com IT. Spot Zoning Spot zoning has not been substantially addressed by Minnesota courts. In fact,there are only ten Minnesota cases' that mention spot zoning, and most of those cases do not provide much guidance or a well-developed rule. See, e.g;, _o _a icat1'„ ' e.erti In • v t • Steele, 506 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993): Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass'n, 437 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 1989); Larson v. Washington County, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). Having said that, "ts]pot zoning is the reclassification of a small area of land in a manner that is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, for the benefit of the property owner, and to the detriment of others."2A+i co CoM v. Citv_�g - 3d8 N.W.2d 66, 73 n.6 (1984) (citing Ter v. Tsuddlesten, 641 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)). Said another way, spot zoning applies to zoning changes on a small parcel of land, establishing a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and dramatically reducing the value for uses specified in the zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property. See State by Rochester Ass'n of Seighborhoods v.City of Rochester,268 N.W.2d 885. 891 (Minn. 1978)(citations omitted). One can prove a case of spot zoning by showing the zoning amendment caused (1) a total or substantial diminution of value of the property affected thereby or (2) created an island of nonconforming use. la Alexander v. City of Mb:meat1o4 E, 267 Minn. 155, 160, 125 N.W.2d 583, 586 (1963). That rule was followed fifteen years later in State by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 891-92 (Minn. 1978). The usual presumption of validity attaching to zoning amendments as legislative acts applies, and the burden of demonstrating spot zoning rests with the one attacking the ordinance. fid., In the present case, there is no information to show whether allowing billboards or other • advertising structures (collectively billboards) in the district that includes the golf course, would affect the value of the golf course property or abutting properties. One consideration may include the characteristics of the billboard. A billboard that is considered an eyesore may have the effect of reducing the value of uses allowed on abutting properties. Another consideration may involve the location of the billboard. Even if a billboard did affect the value of the properties, it may not totally or substantially diminish that value, a requirement for spot zoning. The typical scenario associated with spot zoning involves rezoning residential property to allow for commercial or industrial uses. The One other case references spot zoning but that case had been overruled. See Pastel v. Glen Court Neighborhood Ass'n,424 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. Ct.App. 1988). Other courts in defining spot zoning have developed miscellaneous variations. Sees e.g., Watersttadt v. Board of Commissioners. 454 P. 2d d45 (Kan. 1969) ("Spot zoning signifies a carving out of one or more properties located in a given use district and reclassifying them in a different use distnct."). SIR-10870 581-1 10/90'd 5Z1-1 O1E62EEZ19+ N3AV>i9 t A03NN3)-W0Jd LV:60 66-02-01