Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 <br />Vacation of City Streets Page 11 <br />C. Re-establishing a vacated street <br />A.G. Op. 396-G-16 (Apr. <br />Once a city street is vacated, the vacation means a permanent loss of the <br />10, 1947). <br />city's interest in the street. <br />In order to reopen or re-establish a vacated street, the city would need to <br />follow the legal procedures set out in statute for opening city streets at a <br />cost to the city. In order to reopen a street, the city would need to either <br />negotiate an easement with the abutting property owners or use eminent <br />domain proceedings. Both proceedings would likely require the city to pay <br />fair market value for the easement. If the city anticipates a future need for <br />the street, the city should not grant a petition to vacate the street. <br />V. The 60 -day rule <br />Minn. stat. § 15.99. <br />The 60 -day rule is a state law that provides that a city must approve or <br />deny a written request relating to zoning, watershed district review or soil <br />conservation district review within 60 days or it is deemed approved. The <br />underlying purpose of the rule is to keep governmental agencies from <br />taking too long in deciding land -use issues. <br />Advantage Capital <br />The 60 -day rule is written broadly to include all requests related to zoning. <br />Management v. City of <br />Northfield, 664 N.W.2d 421 <br />The Minnesota Court of Appeals has determined that a request is related to <br />(Minn. Ct. App.2003). 500, <br />zoning when the request must be reviewed under the city's specific <br />LLC v. City of Minneapolis, <br />837 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. <br />regulatory structure for zoning (i.e., the city's zoning code). Following this <br />2013). <br />logic, the Court determined that the issuance of building permits is not <br />subject to the 60 -day rule, because the issuance of building permits fell <br />under a different regulatory structure than the city's zoning code. Similar to <br />building permit applications, it seems unlikely that petitions for vacation <br />would be subject to the statute. <br />VI. Peculiar damages resulting from a vacation <br />In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 <br />An abutting landowner who suffers peculiar damages from the vacation of <br />(Minn. 1925). <br />Underwood v. Town Bd. of <br />a public street is entitled to compensation. Normally, peculiar damages <br />Empire, 14 N.W.2d 459 <br />must amount to a loss of access or some other unique injury. In order to <br />(Minn. 1944). <br />In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 <br />obtain compensation for the injury, an abutting landowner does not need to <br />(Minn. 1925). <br />prove the vacation completely obstructs all access to their property. <br />Oliver v. State, 760 NW 2d. <br />912 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). <br />However, the abutting landowner must establish damages that are unique <br />from those suffered by the general public. <br />A non -abutting property owner who suffers inconvenience or re-routing as <br />a result of a vacation is not entitled to damages. <br />Steernerson v. Fontaine, <br />The issue of damages does not prevent a city from vacating the public way <br />119 NW 400. (Minn. 1908). <br />or street. An abutting property owner must bring suit in district court to <br />recover compensation for their damages. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 <br />Vacation of City Streets Page 11 <br />