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

Home Search

24 i. A training program that is attended by a quorum or more of a body to develop skills and understanding regarding the body’s responsibilities and is directed towards general matters, rather than specific problems, is not a meeting. Op. Minn. Atty. Gen., 63a-5 (Feb.5, 1975). c. Site visits where a quorum of the body is present are meetings under the Open Meeting Law. Give notice of such meetings as provided for under the Law. d. Under the Open Meeting Law at least one copy of the agenda and other written materials must be made available in the meeting room for public inspection during the meeting. Materials that were distributed to all members before or at the meeting, or available to all members at the meeting, are the materials that have to be made available. The exceptions to this rule are for data classified as nonpublic under the Data Practices Act, and data relating to discussions at a closed session of the body. e. The law does not absolutely prohibit discussions among Board members outside of an open meeting, either in person, by phone, or in writing. See Moberg, supra; MEA v. Bennett, 321 N.W. 2d 395 (Minn. 1982); Mankato Free Press v. City of Mankato, 563 N.W. 2d 291 (Minn. App. 1997). However, such communications can be problematic in land use decision making. f. Avoidance of Open Meeting Law Problems. 2. Pre-hearing Notice Requirements. a. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 3, set forth the notice requirements for public hearings involving conditional use permits and variances. This includes requirements regarding published notice, notice to neighbors, and notice to affected towns and cities. b. The notice requirements contained in Chapter 462, require notice of the general purpose of the hearing. They do not require that the details of the proposal be disclosed. Kreuz v. St. Louis County Planning and Zoning Commission, 1996 WL 469406 (Minn. App. 1996). c. State law also contains requirements for notice of enactment or amendment of ordinances. This includes publication requirements. Minn. Stat. § 375.51. See Bartheld v. Koochiching County, 716 N.W. 2d 406 (Minn. App. 2006). The best practice is to publish notice that states the municipality’s intent to enact the particular ordinance. However, where a published notice says an ordinance is recommended for adoption by the Board that has been held to be sufficient. Itasca County v. Radenz, 268 N.W.2d 423 (Minn. 1978).