Appealing and Changing Local Zoning Ordinances

Appealing Zoning Ordinances

If you dispute how a zoning ordinance is being applied to you, you appeal to the municipal board of appeals and adjustments, which is established by your local governing body (Minn. Stat. § 462.354, subd. 2). The board has the power to hear and decide appeals “where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance,” and to hear requests for variances (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). That authority reaches a wide range of administrative decisions: permit denials, interpretations of ordinance text, use classifications, and setback or boundary determinations, not only determinations of whether a violation has occurred. The board hears and decides these appeals.

One thing the board does not do is invalidate the ordinance itself. If you want to challenge the validity of the ordinance, rather than how an officer applied it, that challenge is brought in district court, not before the board. Any person aggrieved by a zoning ordinance, decision, or order may seek that review in district court (Minn. Stat. § 462.361, subd. 1).

At any point after an ordinance is adopted, you can propose an amendment to change part or all of it. To pass, an amendment must receive a majority vote of all members of the governing body, not merely a majority of those present (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 2(b)). One exception applies: an amendment that changes all or part of a district’s existing classification from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a two-thirds majority vote of all members of the governing body. A change from commercial to industrial, or any other reclassification that does not start from residential, needs only a simple majority, not two-thirds. Cities of the first class (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, and Rochester) follow a separate procedure under subdivision 5 for residential-to-commercial or -industrial changes, which can require written consent from nearby property owners in addition to the council vote (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5).

Public Zoning Ordinance Amendment Hearing

No zoning amendment may be adopted until a public hearing has been held on it by either the planning agency or the governing body (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 3). Notice of the hearing must be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days before the hearing. If a proposed amendment changes district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, the municipality must also mail notice at least ten days before the hearing to each owner of affected property and to the owner of any property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the land to which the amendment relates.

When your city amends or enacts a zoning ordinance, it is acting in a legislative capacity, and Minnesota courts give it broad discretion. As long as the decision has a rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, a court will not interfere, even if the matter is debatable. See Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 414-17 (Minn. 1981).

The standard a court applies depends on what you are challenging. A legislative act, such as enacting or amending an ordinance to rezone, is reviewed under the rational-basis standard described above. A decision applying ordinance standards to a particular use, such as a conditional use permit denial, is more judicial in character and is reviewed on the record. For that kind of record-reviewed decision, a Minnesota court will reverse only if the governing body “acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71, 75 (Minn. 2015). For a decision reviewed on the record, the court asks two questions: first, whether the reasons the city gave were legally sufficient; and second, if they were, whether those reasons had a factual basis in the record. Id. at 75-76. An older formulation says the same thing in different words: a court “will reverse only where there are no grounds for reasonable debate and where the action of the Board is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or illegal.” Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 220 N.W.2d 256, 263 (Minn. 1974) (quoting Hardesty v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 211 Md. 172, 177, 126 A.2d 621, 623). Sun Oil remains valid precedent, but the controlling modern statement of the standard is the “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious” framework in RDNT.

There is recourse if you believe a zoning ordinance is being improperly applied or enforced against your property. You can appeal a decision about your own property to the board of appeals and adjustments, you can challenge the ordinance’s validity in district court, and you can seek to have the ordinance amended. Each path can be lengthy, and an ideal outcome is never guaranteed, so it helps to understand which path fits your situation before you commit to one.