09-20-2018 Council and Advisory Boards Joint Meeting Packet

Home Search

B. Timely Processing: The Sixty Day Rule 1. Minn. Stat. § 15.99 specifies that written requests relating to zoning, septic systems, SWCD reviev., watershed district review, and/or the expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, for a permit, license, or other governmental approval, must be approved or denied within 60 days from the date of application A failure to comply with the requirement that the application be approved or denied within 60 days results in a penalty of automatic approval. Other requirements of the statute have been held to not have the penalty apply if they are not met by the municipality. 2. What applications are within the statute? a. The statute applies to those applications that are "a written request relating to zoning, septic systems, watershed district review, [SWCD] review...for a permit, license or other governmental approval ofaction." No definition of these terms is set forth in the statute. b In Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield, 604 N.W.2d 421 (Minn App. 2003), a building permit case, the Court said that a request "relating to" zoning was a request to conduct a specific use of land within the regulatory framework relating to zoning. c. More recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court defined the words "relating to" more expansively. In 500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 837 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. 2013), the Court held that the phrase `relatmg to zonmg' refers to a written request that has a connection, association or logical relationship to the regulation of building development or the uses of property. d. The statute does not apply to a building permit application Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield, 604 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. App. 2003). Nor does it apply to an appeal of a zoning administrator's cease and desist order to the board of adjustment Tompkins v Lake County, 2009 WL 66350 (Minn. App. 2009). It also does not apply to a request to amend a zoning ordinance. Motokazie' v. Rice County, 824 N.W. 2d 341 (Minn. App. 2012). e. The 500, LLC case decided that the 60 day rule applied to an application for a certificate of appropriateness under the City's historic preservation ordinances. And in Calm Waters v. Kanabec County, 756 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 2008), the Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that the 60 day rule applied to subdivision requests. Given this decision, counties should process subdivision requests per the requirements of the 60 -day rule. See also, Mesenbrink 20