PL PACKET 06181996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

which action is taken. Cities should What about other state the environmental review requirements always be certain,though, that notice is or federal requirements? that are set by state law. given within the time limit set by the How do these basic requirements Understanding these environmental new statute.Many cities take prelimi- under the new statute apply when a requirements requires us to wade into nary action at one meeting,and proposal requires the approval of other the alphabet soup of state statutes and formally approve reasons for their government bodies or when environ- rules addressing the Environmental decision at a subsequent meeting.This mental statutes apply?The new statute Quality Board(EQB), Environmental approach is probably acceptable as answers some of these questions and Impact Statements (EISs) and Environ- long as the final approval and notifica- raises some doubts about others. mental Assessment Worksheets tion occurs within a reasonable period (EAWs). Under the state Environmen- and before the time limit set by the What about tal Policy Act(Minn. Stat. Ch. 116D) new statute. environmental review? and rules that were adopted by the The penalty for failing to meet the What if state law requires the EQB,government bodies must prepare new time limits is harsh:automatic preparation of environmental docu- environmental documents under approval of the application. It is ments?The new statute provides that certain conditions.Two different kinds important for all cities to understand the time limits are extended if a state of environmental documents may be how the new statute works to avoid statute requires a"process"to occur required:EISs or E--�Ws.Environmental inadvertent approval of land use before the city acts on the application Impact Statements are full evaluations applications.The basic requirements of when that"process"will make it of the environmental effects of a the new statute are discussed in greater impossible for the city to act within 60 proposal and of alternatives to it.The detail in the April 1996 issue of days.The statute's use of the word purpose of the EIS under state law is to Minnesota Cities magazine. "process"is undoubtedly a reference to help determine whether or not a opportunity to waive information S. What steps w-ill the city take to ` need not be elaborate to be: requirements not needed fora ensure that the record is tom effective. particular application. plete? On judicial review, a cou ter.._ - 4. What grounds should the. If the sta'ndards set out by the:_; inquire whether any record evidence use for extensions? Supreme Court in the case of supported the city's decision:If the1 The new law allows a'cit to ,- Swanson v.-Ci y ty of Bloomington X421. 'only record evidence was generated f° extend the 60-day time limit for . N.W.2d 307 (Minn.-1988)'are met,. by the applicant,the answerTto_that period u to an additional 60 das if - - udicial review of the city's question ma well be "no.-"- vent P P Y 1 tY yam. ' the city gives a written notice before will be confined to the record that': simple and inexpensive staff_:analyses the initial 60 days run that notifies was developed before the city.::,-`.'.-. are better than no city anal sissancl .• Y .. P. Y Y Y, ._,.,.. the applicant of two things:-the Because the timetable under the new may provide_a sufficient basisfor,the reason for the extension and the'.,: statute will be more compressed,the city's decision. length of the extension.The fact that city must give early thought to-,, the city mustspecify a reasonsu = identifying and do_cumentin an Endnote ests that a blanket extension would concerns raised b the project. if it . . 9 Y P j 1. Underthe,Swanson case;-'tffd-- not ass muster.A blanket extension does'not do so,the statutory time ` S_'v P rY.. , courts limit their review to:evt=:: that is equally applicable to all cities 'period slip b and the. "'� r , q Y PP P- Y P Y dente that was presentedWihe and to all applications would"swal- ''before:the city may be confined to'': city and do not consider new low"the general statutory 60-day material developed and presente8.by ;`evidence if.two requirements are rule, and would ignore the require the_applicant, even if real concerns met. First,-a complete record must ment that a reason be provided for are posed by the proposal. In'that:.,. be;available showing whatth e'_tity the extension. - : case, a city s decision to deny-a! , including apes or, What constitutes sufficient:., proposal would likely not survive '. transcripts of planning'commission 7-� grounds for an extension?The need review.by the courts. - and city council proceeding T " to collect further information-6n an To make sure that the record is-,. Second,the city's considerat on'- r application or to conduct further balanced and that the city is not,; : _:: _.- :must have been "full and fair`_"r anal sis because of its size or com boxed into approvals,the ci should gg Y PP tY � The Swanson decision suggests�. plexity, or because of the sensitivity - systemize a way to identify:e6nce-rns that standard is met where'the '. with a proposal and to develo �-' of the affected area, are solid ;: p p p.. ': property owner has been.given - grounds for an extension. Grounds record evidence documenting.those sufficient,o ortunit to resent for an extension could also include concerns where appropriate.A ood PP Y P.�."- 9 relevant material to the-tity,and circumstances that distin uish'one time for staff to identify the need for fY has been given the opporEunity to city from cities in general.The any record evidence would be'at.or answer questions and react'to the argument could be made that,while following any pre-application`. '`:= testimony of other particip is :.' N- the 60-day limit was intended to. meeting with staff, or during the; ...These two standards are ex`plafned - . apply to cities in general, it was not initial 10-day period for evaluation'of more fully by the court in,thye intended to apply to a particular city applications.Any staff analysis or Swanson decision. [ or under specific circumstances. other analysis generated by the city -<-