Court Opinion

ID: 9851277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:09:44.674535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:52.890902
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the opinion, but feel compelled to add that the result of the decision is that the plat of Hillview Subdivision has no applicable zoning ordinance affecting it at all. This is fully explained in the trial court’s memorandum made a part of its findings:
“In the Court’s opinion it does not follow that a finding of invalidity of Ordinance 2138 means that property is automatically zoned R-l as contended by the plaintiffs. M.S. 462.357, subd. 3 provides that ‘no zoning ordinance or amendment’ may be adopted without a public hearing. The procedures set forth in Winona City Code, Chapter 31-11, which, in effect, provides that all land not otherwise zoned shall be zoned R-l is subject to the same attack that plaintiffs have launched against Ordinance 2138. Winona City Code 31-11 zones land automatically without any consideration of the uses to which the land may be put, any evaluation by the Planning Commission, nor is there any provision for notice or public hearing. Thus, it falls foul of the zoning enabling act, and, perhaps also the constitutional guaranty of due process. In construing a substantially similar ordinance the Missouri court so held in Dahman v. City of Ballwin [Mo.App.], 483 S.W.2d 605. Therefore, it is the conclusion of the Court that Hillview Subdivision has never been zoned pursuant to the Minnesota zoning enabling statute and the appropriate ordinances of the Winona City Code.”