03/10/2021 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

21 Construction & Engineering, Inc. v. Rice County, 2008 WL 5334251 (Minn. App. 2008) (citing Calm Waters in applying 60-day rule to an application for a planned unit development). 3. Extension. The 60-day period can be extended for an additional 60 days by the municipality by providing written notice to the applicant, prior to the expiration of the deadline, stating the reasons for the extension, and stating it’s length. a. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have upheld a 60-day extension where the letter to the applicant merely noted the municipality wished to take more time to decide. The court noted that since the statute does not specify the contents or type of reasons a municipality is to provide, what was said was sufficient. American Tower, LP v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. 2001); Manco of Fairmont, Inc. v. Rock Dell Township, 583 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. App. 1998). b. Oral notice of an extension is not sufficient. See Demolition Landfill Services v. City of Duluth, 2000 WL 1015893 (Minn. App. 2000). c. The applicant may request an extension of the time limit “by written notice.” Northern States Power Company v. City of Mendota Heights, 646 N.W.2d 919 (Minn. App. 2002). d. In Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec County, 756 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 2008), the Supreme Court determined a zoning administrator had the authority to extend the 60 day rule. Delegation of authority was also an issue in Borglum v. Waseca Soil and Water Conservation District, 2009 WL 5090021 (Minn. App. 2009). 4. Completeness. The 60-day time period begins to run on the municipality’s receipt of an application containing all information required by law or a previously adopted rule, ordinance or policy. The municipality must send notice within 15 business days of receipt of the request telling the applicant exactly what is missing in order for an incomplete application to stop the running of the 60-day period. a. Completeness under the 60-day rule can only be determined by reference to a pre-existing rule, ordinance or policy. In Calm Waters v. Kanabec County, 756 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 2008) the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a County could not require information be submitted with an application that was not specified as necessary in the ordinance. The required information identified on the application itself was evidence of a pre-existing policy. b. In Stokke v. Marshan Township, 2010 WL 3545944 (Minn. App. 2010), the application form for a conditional use permit stated that the applicant may be required to submit additional “property descriptions, property surveys, site plans,