My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:17:50 AM
Creation date
4/1/2013 8:35:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
04/04/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. <br />3(0. <br />American Tower, L.P. v. City <br />of Grant, 636 N.W.2d <br />309(Minn. 2001). <br />Northern States Power Co. v. <br />City of Mendota Heights, <br />646 N.W.2d 919 (Minn. Ct. <br />App. 2002). <br />Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. <br />3 (g). <br />Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. <br />3 (g). <br />Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. <br />3(d), (e). <br />Minn. Stat. ch. 116D. <br />Minn. R. ch. 4410. <br />4. Extensions <br />The law allows a city the opportunity to give itself an additional 60 days (up <br />to a total of 120 days) to consider an application, if the city follows specific <br />statutory requirements. In order to avail itself of an additional 60 days, the <br />city must give the applicant: <br />• Written notification of the extension before the end of the initial 60 -day <br />period; <br />• The reasons for extension; and <br />• The anticipated length of the extension. <br />The courts have been particularly demanding on local governments with <br />regard to this requirement and have required local governments to meet each <br />element of the statute. An oral notice or an oral agreement to extend is <br />insufficient. The reasons stated in the written notification should be specific <br />in order to inform the individual applicant exactly why the process is being <br />delayed. Needing more time to fully consider the application may be an <br />adequate reason. As demonstrated in one Minnesota Supreme Court case, <br />the written notification should not take the form of a blanket statement on <br />the zoning application that the city will need the extension. <br />An applicant may also request an extension of the time limit by written <br />notice. If a city receives an applicant request for an extension, this should be <br />thoroughly documented. <br />Once the city has granted itself one 60 day extension, additional extensions <br />must be negotiated with the applicant. A city can only go beyond 120 days if <br />it gets the approval of the applicant. The city must initiate the request for <br />additional time in writing and have the applicant agree to an extension in <br />writing. The applicant may also ask for an additional extension by written <br />request. <br />The 60- day time period is also extended if a state statute requires a process <br />to occur before the city acts on the application if the process will make it <br />impossible for the city to act within 60 days. The environmental review <br />process is an example. If the city or state law requires the preparation of an <br />environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) or an environmental impact <br />statement (EIS) under the state Environmental Policy Act, the deadline is <br />extended until 60 days after the environmental review process is completed. <br />Likewise, if a proposed development requires state or federal approval in <br />addition to city action, the 60 -day period for city action is extended until 60 <br />days after the required prior approval is granted from the state or federal <br />entity. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/10/2012 <br />Zoning Guide for Cities Page 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.