Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2010

Home

March 25, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No: 6 Zoning Bulletin sources of its authority. The DNR noted that these statutes gave DNR the ! ) express authority to promulgate rules. The DNR had adopted the certifi- ~ / ~ cation Rule as part of its rulemaking authority. The DNR azgued that its Rule was therefore valid. As such, it azgued that it therefore had the au- ] thoriry to approve or not approve the City's vaziance decision. The court ~~ disagreed. It found that the MISCA and MRA did not "unambiguously ~ grant authority to the DNR to certify the City's vaziance decision." Since I the DNR Rule expanded authority given to the DNR by the statutes, the court found the Rule did "not fall within the scope of the [DNR]'s express authority." "Thus, the DNR did not have express authority to approve (or in this case withhold approval of) the City's vaziance decision." The DNR had also azgued that the authority to approve the City's variance decision could be implied from the rulemaking authority given to the DNR ender the MLSCA and MRA. Again, the court disagreed. The court explained that when looking to whether an administrative agency has implied powers, the court looks to the "necessity and logic of the situation." Here, the court found neither necessity nor logic required ' an interpretation of the MLSCA or MRA to imply that the DNR had authority to approve the City's variance decision. The DNR had only the express authority to "assist local governments" in the enforcement of or- dinances. Arule operating to overturn the City's variance decision would be "at odds with the term `assist,"' found the court. Moreover, the leg- islature gave muriicipalities the authority to grant variances. Interpreting ~ the DNR's power to promulgate rules as being broad enough to include the authority to certify the City's variance decision would not, said the. court, "give proper deference to the legislature's decision to give local ', governments the responsibility to enforce standazds." Further, the court found weight in the fact that the legislature had given express authority to certify local government vaziance decision to other starutory entities, and did not give such express authority to the DNR. The court concluded that: "Because the MRA and the MLSCA do not expressly or impliedly authorize the DNR's certification of the City's (variance] decision, the DNR did not have the authority to refuse to ap- prove the vaziance the Ciry granted to Hubbard." Thus, the DNR's non- appr6val was void. See also: In re Qwest's Wholesale Service Quality Standards, 702 N. W.2d 246 (Minn. 2005). See. also: Applitation o f Minnegasco, 565 N. W.2d 706 (Minn. 1997). Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that if the broad author- ity to promulgate rules was all that was needed to show that an ~ agency had "implied authority" to enforce standards as it wanted, then such implied authority would be present in all cases where an ©2010 Thomson Reuters 42