Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 473. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 473.865 (2026)

Adoption; Conflicts, Amendment Of Controls, Devices

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Control copies to council.

Each local governmental unit shall adopt official controls as described in its adopted comprehensive plan and shall submit copies of the official controls to the council within 30 days following adoption thereof, for information purposes only.

Subd. 2.No conflict with plans.

A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans.

Subd. 3.Amendments.

If an official control conflicts with a comprehensive plan as the result of an amendment to the plan, the official control shall be amended by the unit within nine months following the amendment to the plan so as to not conflict with the amended comprehensive plan.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1984–2015 · leading case: RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 473.865, subd. 2. These provisions suggest that the comprehensive plan may carry more legal significance in the metropolitan area than it does in greater Minnesota.”
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 4× “1; accord Minn.Stat. § 473.865, subd. 2 (2004). Consequently, there is no statutory support for ordering the city to amend its comprehensive plan to conform to the zoning ordinance.”
Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 4× “See Minn. Stat. §§ 473.865 , .852, subd. 9 (1982).”
R.A. Putnam & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights, 510 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “Minn. Stat. § 473.865 , subd. 2 (1990). Furthermore, if a conflict between a zoning ordinance and a comprehensive plan arises because of an amendment to the plan, the ordinance should be amended.”
Concept Props., LLP v. City of Minnetrista, 694 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 473.865, subd. 2 (2004) (requiring municipality not to adopt zoning that conflicts with its comprehensive plan).”
BBY INVESTORS v. City of Maplewood, 467 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 473.865, subd. 2 (1988). The city code requirement that a conditional use permit must be for a use that is in conformity with the comprehensive plan is simply a codification of this statutory rule.”
Chase v. City of Minneapolis, 401 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 473.865, subd. 2 (1986) provides: A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans.”
City of Lake Elmo v. Metro. Council, 674 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 473.865, subd. 2 (2002). But it is presumed that the legislature intends to favor a public interest over a private interest.”
City of Crystal v. Fantasy House, Inc., 569 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 473.865, subd. 2 (1996) (“A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control * * * in conflict with its comprehensive plan * * * ”).”
Freundshuh v. City of Blaine, 385 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 473.865 , subd. 2 (1984). Moreover, “a refusal to zone [in accord with the comprehensive plan] is evidence that the city is acting in an arbitrary manner.”
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.