Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 <br />Vacation of City Streets Page 3 <br />c. What constitutes an ownership interest in abutting <br />land? <br />A.G. Op. 396-G-16, (Oct. <br />An ownership interest in land does not include mere easement interests and <br />22, 1958). A.G. Op. 396-G- <br />16 (July 22, 1953). <br />implicates actual fee ownership. While easement holders may not sign a <br />petition for vacation as abutting property owners, the city should carefully <br />consider the concerns of easement holders—particularly easement holders <br />with water, sewer, and electrical lines—prior to granting a vacation. <br />d. Is a city with property abutting a vacation considered <br />an "owner of land" for the purposes of signing the <br />petition? <br />A.G. Op. 396-C-18, (August <br />A city that has a fee ownership interest in land abutting a street to be <br />5, 1948). A.G. Op. 346-G-1, <br />(Mar. 4, 1963). <br />vacated may choose to join in signing a petition for vacation. <br />2. Public hearing and notice requirements <br />Whether initiated by the council or by petition from the abutting owners, <br />the city must conduct a public hearing to solicit public input on a proposed <br />vacation prior to granting a vacation. <br />a. Notice requirements <br />Public Hearing on Vacation <br />Notice of the hearing must be published in the city's legal newspaper and <br />of a Street, LMC Model <br />Notice <br />posted at least two weeks prior to the hearing. Newspaper publication must <br />Minn. stat. § 645.11. <br />be once a week for two weeks. In addition, written notice of the hearing <br />must be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at <br />least 10 days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a <br />copy of the petition or proposed resolution as well as the time, place, and <br />date of the hearing. Certified mail is not required by the statute. <br />Unfortunately, the statute does not define who is considered to be an <br />"affected" property owner entitled to notice. The implications of the term <br />"affected" are broader than the term "abutting" used elsewhere in the <br />statute. As a result, the group of "affected" owners comprises a group <br />larger than the abutting owners, but smaller than the general citizenry of <br />the city who will receive published notice of the vacation. <br />Etzler v. Mondale, 123 <br />The Court has established that when platted streets are vacated, due process <br />N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1963). <br />concerning vacation of plats <br />requires, at minimum, that notice be sent to all owners or occupants of land <br />pursuant to Minn. stat. § <br />within the platted area. Owners and purchasers of platted land are <br />505.14. Batinich v. Harvey, <br />277 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. <br />presumed to rely upon access to the areas dedicated to public use in a plat <br />1979). <br />and are deemed to be "affected" owners. Cities may adopt a more generous <br />standard as appropriate to their fact situation. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 <br />Vacation of City Streets Page 3 <br />