04-13-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r 1 Larkin , H offman , D aly & Lindgren , Ltd. Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and Members of the City Council April 13, 1998 Page 2 ______ denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request. Subd. 3. Application; extensions, (a) The time limit in subdivision 2 begins upon the agency ’s receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency. If an agency receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the 60-day limit starts over only if the agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. (f) An agency may extend the time limit in subdivision 2 before the end of the initial 60-day period by providing written notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. The City failed to give notice to the Applicant within the 60 day deadline. Moreover, it is over 6 months since the application was filed and the City stm has not made a decision. The intent of this statute is unambiguous- applicants for certain permits and approvals are entitled to timely decisions. The Minnesota Legislature, in response to expressions of concerns and frustration of representatives of vanoi^ property owners and property rights groups, enacted a statute in 1995 directing cities, counties, to^^ and other agencies of government to undertake certain types of land use decisions in a timely fashion. The deadline for action by state agencies and political subdivisions is 60 days. The 60 day deadline may be extended an additional 60 days if written notification with reasons for the extension is provided to the applicant prior to the end of the initial 60 day period. An argument may be made that this statue applies to zoning decisions and not subdivision decisions. While we do not believe that is the case, the preliminary plat application would have long been deemed approved pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subr- 3b. In the event the City Council fails to recognize by motion or resolution the operation of Minn. Stat. § 15.99, the Applicant will immediately seek a court order establishing that the original plan as submitted on September 26,1997, is deemed approved as a matter of state law. If forced to pursue this remedy, the Applicant will aggressively seek to recover all fees and costs associated with the City necessitating court action to force its compliance with state law.