03-27-2013 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: A.G. Op. 396 -G -16 (Apr 10. 1947) Minn . Stat. § 15.99. Advantage Capital Adanogentent v. City of iborU f eld. 664 N.W.2d 421, (Minn. Ct. App.2003). /n re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 (Minn. 1925). Underwood v. Town Bd. of Empire, 14 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. 1944). In re Hall. 204 N.W. 534 (Minn. 1925). Oliver v. State, 760 NW 2d. 912 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). Steernerson v. Gamin, 119 NW 400 (Minn. 1908). C. Re- establishing a vacated street Once a city street is vacated, the vacation means a permanent loss of the city's interest in the street. In order to reopen or re- establish a vacated street, the city would need to follow the legal procedures set out in statute for opening city streets at a cost to the city. In order to reopen a street, the city would need to either negotiate an easement with the abutting property owners or use eminent domain proceedings. Both proceedings would likely require the city to pay fair market value for the easement. If the city anticipates a future need for the street, the city should not grant a petition to vacate the street. V. The 60 -day rule The 60 -day rule is a state law that provides that a city must approve or deny a written request relating to zoning, watershed district review or soil conservation district review within 60 days or it is deemed approved. The underlying purpose of the rule is to keep governmental agencies from taking too long in deciding land -use issues. The 60 -day rule is written broadly to include all requests related to zoning. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has determined that a request is related to zoning when the request must be reviewed under the city's specific regulatory structure for zoning (i.e., the city's zoning code). Following this logic, the Court determined that the issuance of building permits is not subject to the 60 -day rule, because the issuance of building permits fell under a different regulatory structure than the city's zoning code. Similar to building permit applications, it seems unlikely that petitions for vacation would be subject to the statute. VI. Peculiar damages resulting from a vacation An abutting landowner who suffers peculiar damages from the vacation of a public street is entitled to compensation. Normally, peculiar damages must amount to a loss of access or some other unique injury. In order to obtain compensation for the injury, an abutting landowner does not need to prove the vacation completely obstructs all access to their property. However, the abutting landowner must establish damages that are unique from those suffered by the general public. A non - abutting property owner who suffers inconvenience or re- routing as a result of a vacation is not entitled to damages. The issue of damages does not prevent a city from vacating the public way or street. An abutting property owner must bring suit in district court to recover compensation for their damages. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/9/2010 Vacation of City Streets 28 Page 11