Agenda Packets - 1982/09/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

is "zoning ci:anges, typically limited to small plots of land, which establish a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and create an island of non -conforming use within a larger zoned district, and which dramatically reduced the value for uses specified in the zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property." The court did not consider the City's action as spot zoning. It should be noted L%at thu.-. was a dissenting opinion and felt that there should be no distinction between the granting or denying of a special use purmiz and the rezoning of a parcel of land. CONCLUSION 1. zoning or rezoning actions by the city council are legis- lative acts that the courts will sustain unless they are clearly arbitrary and capricious and are not supported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, or that the classification amounts to a taking of someonds property right without compensation. 2. That as to special or conditional use permits, a denial of one is prima facie, arbitrary and unreasonable if it is shown that the council failed to support its action by written findings of substantial ovidunce showing the use inpermissible under the ep rmit standards of the ordinance. 3. That although it may he desirable that the comprehensive i �i land use plan be censirj' en1. with the zoning plan, the Minnesota Supreme Court does not interpret the applicable statutes to make consistency a requirement (unless the Minnesota Legislature so determines at a later ti;;;e) and finds no problem with the amendment of the corprahe nsivo land use plan subsequent to the rezoning ordinance as was done in the Rochester Case. by reco.numondation would be that the planning authorities of the City should endeavor, w;;.:naver possible, to maintain consistency between the land use plan and the :toning plan. Implicit in this decision, is that it is t:aa zoning that controls the use of the -5-