Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 6 ~\ ral Resources ("DNR") also opposed Hubbazd's request. Nonetheless, _- / the city council (the "City") granted the variance to Hubbard. The City then notified DNR of its variance decision. Under DNR rule (Minn. R. 6105.0540) (the "Rule"), local government units were re- quired to notify DNR of any decision to grant a variance from an Ordi- Hance applicable to the Lower St. Croix Riyer. The Rule further provided that "the local unit's decision [wa]s not `ef£eaive unless and until the [DNR] has certified that the action complies' with law " The DNR refused to certify the City's decision because "it did not `fmd adequate justification of the bluffline vaziance in the City's Find- ings."' The'DNR found that the City had failed to address why Hub- bard could not simply move his house back to meet the 40-foot bluffline setback. The City and Hubbard appealed the DNR's decision to an admin- . istrative law judge ("ALJ"). The ALJ concluded that: "Hubbard had failed to show hardship justifying a vaziance from the bluffline-setback ordinance." Hubbard and the City then appealed to the,DNR Commissioner. The Commissioner affirmed the DNR's denial of certification of the bluffline variance. _ Hubbard and the City then appealed the Commissioner's order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. They argued that the DNR did not have .J authority-pursuant to that given to it by the state legislature-to over- turn the City's decision on Hubbard's variance request. Theyargued that the certification Rule was invalid. The court of appeals reversed the Commissioner's order. The court found that the Commissioner had "failed to affirm the denial of the vari- ance request" within 60 days as required by state statute (Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a)). Among others, the DNR Commissioner tlien appealed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota. The Court's Decision: Judgment. of court of appeals affirmed (on other grounds). Agreeing with Hubbard and the City, the Supreme Court of Minneso- . to held that the DNR did not have express or implied authority to certify the City's decision to grant the variance. The court explained that administrative agencies like the DNR have only the authority given to them by the state legislature. Here, the court looked to whether: (1) state statutes gave the DNR express authority to approve local government variance decisions; or (2) such authority could be implied from the power given (via statutes) to the DNR. ( The DNR had pointed to the Minnesota Lower St. Croix Wild and Sce- \~~ nic Rivers Act ("MLSCA") (Minn. Stat. § 103F.351) and the Minnesota Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ("MRA") (Minn. Stat. § 103F.301-.345) as © 2010 Thomson Reuters 41