PL PACKET 03212006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• CHAPTER 15 Buss v Johnson,624 N.w.2d In determining whether a nonconforming building or structure has been 781 (Minn Ct.App.2001). destroyed to an extent of 50 percent or more of its market value, a reviewing Clear Channel Outdoor Adver., authority must consider the market value of the entire nonconforming use. Inc.v.City of St.Paul,675 The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected a city's interpretation of an N.w.2d 343(Minn.Ct.App. ordinance prohibiting repair of a nonconforming sign to an extent greater 2ooa). than 51 percent of its replacement cost as applying when damage to the sign face alone exceeded 51 percent of the replacement cost of the sign face. The state statute on nonconformities supersedes any conflicting language in a zoning ordinance. X. The "takings" issue A. The general law U.S.Const.amend.V. Both the U.S. Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution forbid the taking Minn.const.art.l§3. of private property for public use without just compensation. Regulations-on property may be considered takings if the regulation goes too far. Pennsylvania Coal v.Mahon, 260 U.S.393,43 S.Ct.158 (1922). • In determining whether a regulation goes too far,the United States Supreme Court has recognized two distinct classes of regulatory takings: Lucas v South Carolina Coastal . Categorical takings, in which the regulation denies all economically Comm'n,505 U.S. 1003,112 S. beneficial or productive use of land. Ct.2886(1992). Penn Cent.Transp.Co.v.City . Case-specific regulatory takings,which involve consideration of the of New York,438 U.S.104,98 economic impact of the regulation,the interference with reasonable S.Ct.2646(1978). investment-backed expectations,and the character of the regulation. McShane v.City ofFairbault, a The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized a third class of takings that 292 N.w.2d 253(Minn. 1980). may occur when the government adopts a land use regulation designed to Olsen v.City of Ironton,2001 benefit a specific public or governmental enterprise. If the regulation is WL 379010,CX-00-1 371 enacted for the benefit of a government enterprise(airport zoning, for (Minn.Ct.App.Apr. 17,2001). example),the government must compensate the landowners whose property has suffered a substantial and measurable decline in market value as a result of the regulations. HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES 15-23 This chapter last revised 12/15/2004