§
Subdivision 1.Except most populous counties.
For the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community any county in the state having less than 300,000 population according to the 1950 federal census is authorized to carry on county planning and zoning activities.
§
Subd. 1a.Amortization prohibited.
Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a county, regardless of population, under this chapter or under a special or local law, must not enact, amend, or enforce an ordinance providing for the elimination or termination of a use by amortization which use was lawful at the time of its inception. This subdivision does not apply to adults-only bookstores, adults-only theaters, or similar adults-only businesses, as defined by ordinance.
§
Subd. 3.Nuisance.
Subdivision 1a does not prohibit a county from enforcing an ordinance providing for the prevention or abatement of nuisances, as defined in section 561.01, or eliminating a use determined to be a public nuisance, as defined in section 617.81, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (2), items (i) to (x), without payment of compensation.
Notes of Decisions
Cnty. of Benton v. Kismet Investors, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 193 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 24× “The district court also concluded that Minn.Stat. § 394.21, subd. la, does not violate the First Amendment and that King’s on the Lake qualifies as a “similar adults-only” business under the statute.”
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice Cnty., 824 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “While there is no explicit or specific grant of authority to create procedures and rules for the enactment of these official controls, such authority is clearly contemplated within chapter 394. See Minn.Stat. § 394.”
In Re Block, 727 N.W.2d 166 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
“Morrison County is authorized to carry out planning and zoning activities under Minn.Stat. 394.21, subd. 1 (2004). Boards may by ordinance designate certain kinds of development as “conditional uses” under zoning regulations.”
Scinocca v. St. Louis Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 281 N.W.2d 659 (Minn. 1979).
· cites it 2× “1, which provides: “ * * * The board shall provide for the enforcement of sections 394.21 to 394.37 and of ordinances and regulations made thereunder, and may impose enforcement duties on any officer, department, agency, or employee of the county.”
Tuckner v. Twp. of May, 419 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 394.21 (1984) authorizes Washington County to carry on county planning and zoning activities “for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community”.”
Fish Hook Ass'n v. Grover Bros. P'ship, 417 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 394.21 (1984), which gives counties the authority to carry on planning and zoning activities, states the statute is “for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community * * Thus, the standard of review of a zoning…”
Shetka v. Aitkin Cnty., 541 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
“The board of adjustment shall hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision, or deter *352 mination made by any administrative official charged with enforcing any ordinance adopted pursuant to the provision of sections 394.21 to 394.37 * * *. Minn.Stat.”
Pierce v. Otter Tail Cnty., 524 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
“37 only provides that taxpayers may institute mandamus proceedings in district court to enforce the zoning provisions of sections 394.21 to 394.37. Minn.Stat. § 394.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.