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