LP-038 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o o 10. That the proposed comprphensi ve plan being developed by the Planning Commission projects the subject property's use as low density residential use; The comprehensive plan being developed and referred to in Finding Number Ten should be legally distinguished from the Comprehensivp Zoning Ordinance existing on November 23. 1976. Finding Number Ten indicates that some plan is "being developed". Plaintiff's rights should legally be decided on the existing zoning ordinance which has been legally adopted by the City of New R righton to permit lawful land use. Plaintiff purchased the land ..;ubject to said 7.oning and should have a right to reasonably rely upon and use this land on the basis of the existing Zoning Ordinance. A municipality is bound by its existing comprehensive Zoning Or'dinance. See Olsen vs. City of Minneapolis. 263 Minn. 1. 1 Fl NW~d 734. 739 (962). 11. That a restaurant with a liquor license is a higher intensity commercial use than a restaurant without a liquor license Lhereby making the conflict with the proposed comprehensive pl an more substantial; The proposed zoning or plan "being developed" is not the legal standard to grant or deny the requested liquor license. The existing zoning is the legal criteria until the zoning is legally - - amended. fre Olsen vs. City of Minneapolis. supra. This Finding demonstrates furt.her the unfounded basis employed by Defendant to defeat Plaintiff's otherwise valid liquor license request. 12. That a license application similar in all respects to the subject application was denied by the Council on February 10. 1976; This Finding erroneously presupposes and concludes that any previous action taken by the City Council is legally correct. The previous action by Defendant on February 10. 1976 was in fact arbitrary. capricious and without substantial relation to public health. safety. morals and general welfare. The denial of Plaintiff's requested on-sale liquor license on November 23. 1976 -7-