Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2011 - Special Jt Mtg w CC

Home

Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a); Johnson v Cook County, No. AO8-1501 (Minn. 2010) (unpublished decision). Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(c) . Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W. 2d 536 (Minn. 2007) Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(b) . Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f) . American Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 3O9(Minn. 2001) ; Northern States Power Co. v. City of Mendota Heights, 646 N.W.2d 919 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). 3. Denials If an agency or a city denies a request, it must give written reasons for its denial at the time it denies the request. When a multimember governing body such as a city council denies a request, it must state the reasons for denial on the record and provide the applicant with a written statement of the reasons for denial. The written statement of the reasons for denial must be consistent with reasons stated in the record at the time of denial. The written statement of reasons for denial must be provided to the applicant upon adoption. State statute provides that the failure of a motion to approve an application constitutes a denial, provided that those voting against the motion state on the record the reasons why they oppose the request. This situation usually occurs when a motion to approve fails because of a tie vote, or because the motion fails to get the required number of votes to pass. 4. Extensions The law allows a city the opportunity to give itself an additional 60 days (up to a total of 120 days) to consider an application, if the city follows specific statutory requirements. In order to avail itself of an additional 60 days, the city must give the applicant: • Written notification of the extension before the end of the initial 60-day period; • The reasons for extension; and • The anticipated length of the extension. The courts have been particularly demanding on local governments with regard to this requirement and have required local governments to meet each element of the statute. An oral notice or an oral agreement to extend is insufficient. The reasons stated in the written notification should be specific in order to inform the individual applicant exactly why the process is being delayed. Needing more time to fully consider the application may be an adequate reason. As demonstrated in one Minnesota Supreme Court case, the written notification should not take the form of a blanket statement on the zoning application that the city will need the extension. ZONING GUIDE FOR CITIES 27