My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:34:29 AM
Creation date
11/1/2004 8:51:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/04/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
223
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
League of Minnesota Cities <br /> Insurance Trust <br /> <br />145 Universib/Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 <br />(651) 281-1200 · (800) 925-:L222 <br /> Fax: (651) 281-1298 · 'TO0: (651) 281-1290 <br /> www.lmnc, org <br /> <br /> LMCI'T RISK MANAG~=MENT MEMO <br />THE LATEST WORD ON THE "60-DAY RULE" <br /> MINN. STAT. § 15.99, MINNESOTA'S <br /> AUTOMAT]lC APPROVAL STATUTE <br /> <br />In i995, Minnesota joined about cwo-dozen states in adopting an "automatic approval", statute, <br />Minn. Stat. § 15.99. That statute provides that a municipality must approve or deny a written <br />request relating to zoning within 60 days or it is deemed approved. <br /> <br />According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, "the underlying purpose o~'Minn. Stat. § 15.99 is <br />to keep governmental agencies from taking too long in deciding [and use issues..." ,P_fcmco of <br />FcTirmont, Jnc. v. Town Boo, rd of Rock De//Township, 583 N.W.2d 293,296 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />1998). Courts have generally demanded strict compliance with the requirements of the law. <br />Accordingly, the law has resulted in numerous lawsuits against local governments. This memo <br />reviews basic requirement of the law and discusses some of the more common mistakes cities <br />have made in applying it. It also highlights the 2003 changes made by the Minnesota legislature <br />in an effort to clarify the law--these statutory changes govern all applications after June I, 2003. <br /> <br />General Rule <br />The general rule states that the "Failure of [a municipality] to deny a request within 60 days is <br />approval of the request." Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2. The statute also provides that <br />[municipatit?"s] response meets the 60 day time limit if the [municipality] can document that the <br />response was sent within 60 days 9f receipt of the written request." Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. <br />~(c). <br /> <br />S tatuto~? Exceptions <br /> l. The 60-day time period does not begin to run if the city notifies the landowner in writing <br /> within 15 business days that the application is incomplete. The city must also state what <br /> information is missing. (The 2003 legislature increased the period from 10 to i5 days.) <br /> <br />The ci~, may grant itself another 60 days (up to a total of 120 days), if before the end of <br />the initial 60-day period, it notifies the landowner in writing of its intent to take <br />additional time to consider the application, the reasons ~'or the extension and the <br />anticipated length of the extension. <br /> <br />3. Time period is tolled while other necessary state or federal approvals are oe'ng sought. <br /> <br />64 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.