Opinion ID: 1918183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Disposition of Issues as Between M.A.C. and Commissioner

Text: To resolve the issues as between M.A.C. and the commissioner it is declared that: (1) The legislature of the State of Minnesota has delegated zoning authority to M.A.C. by L.1945, c. 303, as amended by L.1957, c. 610, now incorporated in Minn. St. 360.063, within that part of the State of Minnesota and to the extent therein specified. (2) The authority of M.A.C. to adopt zoning ordinances in an airport hazard area, i. e., an area where a structure, object of natural growth, or use of land might be established which, if not prevented by zoning legislation, would obstruct the air space required for the flight of aircraft in landing or taking off at any airport or restricted landing area or be otherwise hazardous to such landing or taking off, [5] is to be found in subd. 1(1) of the section as amended. (Minn.St. 360.063, subd. 1[1]). The area within which M.A.C. may zone pursuant to the authority granted by this subdivision is limited to such part of its territorial jurisdiction, i. e., all places within 25 miles of the city hall of either city, [6] as constitutes an airport hazard area. Since an airport hazard area is any area of land or water upon which an airport hazard might be established, and an airport hazard is any structure, object of natural growth, or use of land which obstructs the air space required for, or is otherwise hazardous to, aircraft while landing and taking off, it is likely that obstructions which would not be such a hazard at one stage of aeronautical development could be at another. Generally, a zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to the power granted by subd. 1 which limits the uses of private property by exercise of the police power must operate prospectively only. [7] Therefore, the exact physical limits of any airport hazard area cannot be permanently defined and must be left subject to change from time to time so as to reflect and correspond to the landing and take-off requirements of the aircraft which are permitted to use the facilities located in the area involved. We do not undertake to determine what that area may be on the record now before us. (3) Authority to adopt zoning ordinances which may restrict the vertical level above which the space over land may not be used for certain purposes but which may also regulate and restrict the use of land without regard to the height of space encroachment incidental to such use is to be found in Minn.St. 360.063, subd. 1(2), which permits regulation of the location, size, and use of buildings and the density of population. In so far as this authority exceeds that given by the provisions of subd. 1(1) of the section, it can be exercised only in approach zones for a distance not to exceed two miles from the airport boundary and in any other portion of an airport hazard area for a distance not to exceed one mile from the airport boundary. We note that while the scope of possible land use restriction under subd. 1(2) is broader than that permitted under subd. 1 (1) the territory in which the power granted by subd. 1(2) can be exercised is more limited. This is so because subd. 1(1) applies to so much of an airport hazard area as lies within 25 miles of the city hall of either of the cities of the first class, while subd. 1(2) applies only to that portion of such airport hazard area as lies within the two-mile and one-mile distances from an airport boundary specified in subd. 1(2). (4) The proposed zoning ordinance having been submitted to the commissioner, it became his duty to immediately examine the proposed ordinance and report to M.A.C. (a) his approval or (b) his objections, if any. [8] The refusal of the aeronautics commissioner to do one or the other is without justification and creates a justiciable controversy since his inaction prevents M.A.C. from taking the additional steps [9] preliminary to the adoption of a proper ordinance. (5) While the aeronautics commissioner is obligated either to approve the proposed ordinance or state his objections to the proposal, M.A.C. will not be authorized to proceed with a public hearing on the proposed ordinance as contemplated by L. 1945, c. 303, § 28, if objections of the aeronautics commissioner are based on the ground that the regulations do not conform to the minimum standards prescribed by him for the class of airport involved. (Italics supplied.) This is so because objections based upon this ground (as distinguished, for example, from objections based upon the ground that the area covered by the proposed ordinance is excessive) suspend further proceedings preliminary to the adoption of the proposed ordinance until M.A.C. makes such amendments as are necessary to meet such objections so that the proposed ordinance will conform to such minimum standards. (Italics supplied.) While the suspensive effect of objections of the aeronautics commissioner occurs only when his objections are based on the ground that the proposed airport zoning regulations do not conform to the minimum standards prescribed by him, this does not bar the commissioner from reporting to M.A.C. such objections to the proposed regulations as he may have on grounds other than the failure of the proposed ordinance to require compliance with such minimum standards as the commissioner may have adopted. But M.A.C. is required to amend its proposed ordinance to comply with objections made by the commissioner as a condition precedent to further proceedings only when and to the extent such objections are based upon M.A.C.'s failure to respect in the proposed ordinance the minimum standards prescribed by the commissioner. (Italics supplied.)