Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2008

Home

(() ((Jl /------)) ~L" ;' -.-=:::=;-' November 10, 20081 Volume 21 No. 21 Thereafte.t; the county Environmental Services Director (ESD) extended the time for apprOval or denial of CWVs application an additional 60 days. Eventually, on October. 18, 2006, the COrnnllssion denied C~s ap- plication because it failed to comply with the to~hip requirements and county Ordinance. SpecifiCally, the Commission said that CWVs proposed lot sizes did not meet the to aCres required for lot size within the township. CWL appealed the' Commission's denial of its application. The court of appeals found that Cwr;s application was, apprOved by operatIon of law. It said this was because the Commission had failed to ,deny CWL's application within 60 days as required by Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. S 15.99, subd. 2(a)). The Commission' appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The court concluded that the Commission timely denied CWL's application. In reaching that c~nclusion, the court explained that under Minne- 'sota law (Minn. Stat. S 15.99, subd. 2(a)) ~'an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written 'request relating to zoning .... Failure of an agency to deny a 'request,within 60 days is approval of the request." CWL had atguedthat itssubdivisiori application was approved by op- - eration of that law because: (1) its application'wascomplete when sub- mitted on July 26, 2006 since the commission did not have authority to , require a township apprOval letter and therefore the 60-day period began on that date; (2) the attempt to extend the 60-day period was ineffective because the county's ESD did not have the authority to eXtend die time period; and (3) in any event, the Commission's denial of the application On October 18, 2006 was ineffective because under state law (Minn. Stat. S 394.30) and the Ordinance, the Commission only had the power to approve applications and did not have the power to deny them. The court rejected each of CWL's arguinents.- Although it noted that CWL was correct that no Minnesota statute or county ordinan~e specm- - cally required a township letter, the 'coUrt helc;l that the Commission had the authority to require that the subdivision application include a town- , ship apprOval Jetter. The court found that authority in the fact that the county's Ordinance, comprehensive plan, and practices "contemplate[d] that the approval of subdivision applications w[ ould] be coordinated with [the township]." Accordingly, becaUse CWL failed to prOvide a township approvalletter, the subdivision application that CWL filed was incomplete. The court also concluded that the county's attempt to extend the 60- day period was effective. The countY's ESD had extended the 60-day deadline within the initial 60-day period. Contrary to CWL's assertions, the county's ESD did have the authority to extend the deadline because it @ 2008 Thomson ReutersIWest 5 67