Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2013 1 Volume 7 1 Issue 21 a certificate of appropriateness was a "written request." However, the par- ties disagreed as to whether an application for a certificate of appropriate- ness "relat[es] to zoning" under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a), and is therefore subject to the 60-day time line for approval or denial. DECISION: Judgment of court of appeals reversed and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that an application for a certifi- cate of appropriateness is a "written request relating to zoning," and is therefore subject to the 60-day review limitation. Looking at the plain language of the statute (§ 15.99, subd. 2(a)) and the definitions of the phrase "relating to" and the term "zoning," the court interpreted the phrase "a written request relating to zoning" to refer to: "a written request that has a connection, association, or logical relationship to the regulation of building development or the uses of property." The court noted that: "[i]f a written request has such a connection, as- sociation, or logical relationship, then the 60-day time limit in. § 15.99, subd. 2(a), applies." In so holding, the court rejected the City's argument that a "written request relating to zoning" referred only to those requests that were explicitly authorized by an applicable zoning ordinance or statute. The court said the City's interpretation ignored the phrase "relating to" and added words of limitation (i.e., authorized by statutes or ordinances) that were not in. § 15.99, subd. 2(a). Having interpreted the meaning of "a written request relating to zon- ing," the court went on to conclude that an application for a certificate of appropriateness is a written request related to zoning under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a). The court reached that conclusion upon finding that: (1) heritage -preservation proceedings have a connection, association, or logical relationship to zoning, and certificates of appropriateness involve a particular property and affect specific property rights; (2) Minnesota's historic-preservation-enablinglaws recognize a connection, association, or logical relationship between heritage preservation and zoning, and a municipality's powers in historic -preservation matters extend to zoning; and (3) the City's heritage -preservation ordinances identify a connection, association, or logical relationship between an application for certificate of appropriateness and zoning. Finally, since the City had conceded that it failed to approve or deny 500 LLC's application for a certificate of appropriateness within 60 days, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the City; it remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. See also: In re Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Out- door Advertising Device Permits in City of Mounds View, 664 N. W.2d 1 (Minn. 2003). See also: Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec County Bd. of Com'rs, 756 N. W.2d 716 (Minn. 2008). ©2013 Thomson Reuters 11