Opinion ID: 1918183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court Determination

Text: The matter came on for trial before the District Court of Ramsey County without a jury on November 2, 1964. The following findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered: That plaintiff at all times herein mentioned was and still is a public corporation organized and existing pursuant to the Statutes of Minnesota, and having the powers conferred upon it by the statute creating it, and that the defendant is and was at all times herein mentioned duly qualified and acting commissioner of aeronautics of the State of Minnesota. That heretofore the plaintiff caused to be drafted certain zoning regulations, and duly submitted the same to the defendant for his approval in the manner provided by law. That said zoning regulation, or ordinance, purports and attempts to rezone land and regulate its use for a distance of approximately 25 miles from the court houses located in St. Paul and Minneapolis. That the defendant has refused to take any action upon the proposed ordinance for the reason that he claims it exceeds the power granted to plaintiff by the statute. The intervenors claim that, in addition to the objections made to the ordinance by the defendant, the proposed ordinance is invalid, upon the grounds generally that the statute under which both parties to the action claim to proceed is invalid, insofar as it attempts to delegate to plaintiff any power to zone real estate and restrict its use within the limits of municipal governments, which have the power of zoning, which was conferred upon them by the legislature prior to the enactment of the statute under which plaintiff claims the right to proceed, and intervenors further claim that, in any event, the proposed ordinance is so unreasonable that it would be invalid, if passed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff and defendant are entitled to the declaratory judgment of this Court holding and declaring the Statutes of Minnesota, collected and codified as Chapter 360, M.S., confer upon the plaintiff the power to regulate the location, size and use of buildings and the density of population in that portion of an airport hazard area under approach zones for a distance not to exceed two miles from the airport boundary, and in other portions of an airport hazard area for a distance not to exceed one mile from the airport boundary, and no further zoning power. That such power may be exercised by plaintiff in the form of an ordinance, the proposed ordinance, before any hearing is held thereon, to be first submitted to the defendant, in order that he may determine whether it conforms to the minimum standards prescribed by him, and that if any objections are made by him on the ground that such regulations do not conform to the minimum standard prescribed by him, that plaintiff must make such amendments as are necessary to meet such objections. That the statute, as so construed, does not violate any of the provisions of the Constitution. That the defendant was justified in his refusal to consider the proposed ordinance. The court expressly refrains from making any determination or declaration as to the validity and reasonableness of the proposed ordinance, because there is at this time no justiciable issue relating thereto. That if and when an ordinance is adopted by the plaintiff in the manner prescribed by law that the portion of the statute commonly called the `tall structure act' [1] remains in full force and effect, except to the extent that its provision may be modified by the valid provisions of such zoning ordinance.