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 EAWs.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 7. opportunity to waive information S.What"steps will the city take to- need not be elaborate requirements not needed for-a - ensure that the record is com effective. .. ` particular application. -: plate? _ On judicial review, a court may°." 4. What grounds should the city If the standards set out by the:., inquire whether any record evidence - F use for extensions? Supreme Court in the case of supported the city's deusion If the The new law allows a city to Swanson v. City of Bloomington'421_ o kerat nly record evidence was geed extend the 60-day time limit for a._ N.W.2d 307 (Minn.-1988)'are met,..,.. 'by the applicant,the answer_td that . period up to an additional 60 days if judicial review of the city's_decision question may well be "no."E'veii,. z� the city gives a written notice before will be confined to the record that': simple and inexpensive staff:anal ses �' the initial 60 days run that notifies was developed before the city.,."..: are better than no city analysis.,and the applicant of two things:'the Because the timetable under the new may provide'a sufficient basisfo_ahe x 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 k _ ` the city mustspecify a reason s'6 = identi in and document' an Endnote F gents that a blanket extension-Would concerns raised by the project. If it 1. Under the Swanson case the not ass muster.A blanket extension does'not do so,the statutory time, " P rY, courts limit their review to:evi-'",° that is equally applicable to all.cities eriod,ma sli b and the record " ' " ' q Y PP P. Y slip'by - dente that was presented#oche_ and to all applications would°swat- 'before the city may be confined to city and do not consider new low" the general statutory 60-day- :r:":"material developed and presented.by •.'";evidence if.two requiremet) 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. ln'that be available showing whg�tFe_city the extension. case, a'city s decision to denya considered, including to es7or :,,.`- g pep FY7. What constitutes sufficient proposal would likely not survive transcripts of planning"comssion grounds for an extension?The need review by the courts and city council proceedings ``. ti;; to collect further information'•on an To make sure that the record is ,.' Second,the city's consideration.. y> application or to conduct further ` balanced and that the city is not- :must have been "full and fyeTr analysis because of its size or com-- boxed into approvals,the city should .The Swanson decision suggests ,: plexity, or because of the sensitivity -'systemize a_way to identify,concerns . that standard is met of the affected area, are solid, _:_ _.' with a proposal and to develop " en P P P'.`' property owner has been given"- ; grounds for an extension. Grounds record evidence documenting those sufficientopportunity to-present 4 for an extension could also include concerns where appropriate.A_good relevant material to the"ci ,-and r' circumstances that distin uish'one time for staff to identify the- for u' 9 fY has been given the o otaunt to city from cities in general.The-_:�- ` . any record evidence would be'at�.o'r answer questions and readl6ihe _ argument could be made that,while following any pre-application ;.testimony of other partinpants' the 60-day limit was intended to meeting with staff,or during the These two standards are explained apply to cities in general, it was not initial 10-da Y P eriod for evaluation`of more fully by the court in the w?- intended to apply to a particular city applications.Any staff analysis`or` Swanson decision. tC :.: or under specific circumstances. other analysis generated by the city _