My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1981-04-21
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1981
>
1981-04-21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2005 2:06:52 PM
Creation date
9/14/2005 1:20:50 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />.~. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. <br /> <br />Mayor and City Council <br /> <br />April 21, 1981 <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />safety, and welfare of the public and restrictions which invade <br />the rights secured to the property owner by the constitutional <br />provisions that his property shall not be taken, damaged or <br />destroyed without just compensation is a difficult line to draw. <br /> <br />This problem was addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court <br />in Johnson v. City of Plynouth, 263 N.W.2d 603(1978) in which <br />the court stated: <br /> <br />"The dividing line bet\ieen restrictions which <br />may be lawfully imposed under the police power and <br />those which invade the rights secured to the property <br />owner by the constitutional provisions that his <br />property shall not be taken or damaged without com- <br />pensation, nor he be deprived of it without due <br />process of law, has never been distinctly marked <br />out, and probably cannot be. As different cases <br />arise, the courts determine from the facts and <br />circumstances of the particular case whether it <br />falls upon one side or the other of the line." <br /> <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court has also stated that "...zoning <br />ordinances which purport to apply to established properties cannot <br />be used to restructure development existing at and prior to the <br />adoption of the,ordinance". Girvan vs. County of LeSueUr, 232 <br />N.W.2d 888, 893 (1975). In our opinion, the reclassification of <br />the property as "Sensitive Industrial" \V'ould violate this legal <br />standard, and would constitute an act on the improper side of the <br />dividing line of legal propriety, due to the long established use <br />of the subject property for industrial purposes. <br /> <br />This letter is reflective of the concern our client has as <br />to the pending reclassification of the property in the proposed <br />Comprehensive Plan, which concern is compounded due to the fact <br />the property was purchased as industrial and a considerable amount <br />of time, effort, and money has been spent to date to secure plat <br />approval in a configuration that meets all applicable requirements. <br /> <br />Although these concerns are very real, Walburn, Ltd. is not <br />at all approaching the situation in a combative fashion. Rather, <br />the intention of the partnership is to develop a first class <br />environmentally sound industrial park that will be a credit to <br />the city of New Brighton. Walburn, Ltd. stands ready and willing <br />to do anything within reason that the City believes will assist <br />in achieving that goal. <br /> <br />ve~~#h4 <br />~~ 'torden <br /> <br />RAW/jlm <br />cc: Richard B. Bury <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.