Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 21 <br />York, held that although the Planning Board's approval of the prelimi- <br />nary plat in April 2010, did not guarantee approval of the final version, "a <br />planning board may not, in the absence of significant new infoiivation, <br />deny final approval if a property owner implements the modifications or <br />conditions required by a preliminary approval." <br />Here, the court found that the Planning Board had "long known that the <br />[DHS's] approval of a [County] Sanitary Code variance was based on the <br />transfer of sanitary flow credits." In fact, the Planning Board had specifi- <br />cally referenced that transfer in its April 2010 conditional preliminary <br />approval. The court concluded that, inasmuch as no significant new infor- <br />mation came to light after the Planning Board gave its approval to the pre- <br />liminary plat, its imposition of additional requirements in the conditional <br />final approval was arbitrary and capricious. <br />See also: Long Island Pine Barrens Soc., Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town <br />of Brookhaven, 78 N.Y.2d 608, 578 N.Y.S.2d 466, 585 N.E.2d 778 (1991). <br />See also: Bagga v. Stanco, 90 A.D.3d 919, 934 N. Y.S.2d 493 (2d Dep't <br />2011). <br />Rezoning —City denies application <br />for certificate of appropriateness <br />after more than 60 days <br />Applicant argues a certificate of <br />appropriateness is a "written request relating <br />to zoning" that requires a 60-day approval or <br />denial per statute <br />Citation: 500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 2013 WL 5348308 (Minn. <br />2013) <br />MINNESOTA (09/25/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />an application for a certificate of appropriateness is "a written request re- <br />lating to zoning," under Minnesota statutory law (Mimi. Stat. § 15.99, <br />subd. 2(a)), such that the municipalities evaluating a certificate of ap- <br />propriateness must comply with the statutory 60-day time line for <br />responding to such "written requests relating to zoning." <br />The Background/Facts: 500, LLC ("500 LLC") was a real-estate firm <br />that owned a vacant four-story building (the "property") located in Min- <br />neapolis, Minnesota (the "City"). 500 LLC sought to develop the property <br />into an office building. 500 LLC sought site plan approval from the City. <br />The City Council approved 500 LLC's site plan application. <br />However, before the City Council reviewed 500 LLC's site plan ap- <br />©2013 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />