Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DID Y Q=U It-NOWT - , III • Extending the Time to Act Under the 60-Day Rule By Karen Cole y now, nearly all Minnesota cities location of the expanded power line.fi have had experience with the The district court accepted that argument Xcel Energy agreed to the proposals and ruled for the city. The Court of 60 day statute—Minn. Stat. and agreed the statutory period for Appeals, however, reversed and ruled Sect. 15.99—that sets a time limit review would be extended, as long as that the permit must be issued. The for certain land-use decisions. the work of the committee was done in Court reached this conclusion even Under the statute, cities have good faith and within a set time limit. though Xcel Energy waited seven 60 days to make zoning and In the meantime, the consultant was months to insist the permit be issued, septic system decisions. Cities hired and the committee was created even though the studies funded by Xcel may extend the 60-day period, but and met. Near the end of the statutory at the city's request were ongoing, and only if they carefully comply with the period, the City Council determined it even though there had been a spirit of statute's requirements. needed more time and adopted a reso- cooperation between the city and the There are two different ways cities _ company. The Court's decision, along may extend the 60-day period. First, with several others, suggest that Minne- cities may extend the period on their • "The Court's decision,along with several sota courts will interpret the 60-day own if they notify the applicant in statute strictly and that cities should be others,suggest that Minnesota courts writing within the initial 60-day period. careful in extending the deadline. In its written notice, the city must give will interpret the 60-day statute strictly Cities should draw several lessons from reasons for the extension and specify itsthe Xcel Energy case. When extending • length (no longer than an additional 60 and that cities should be careful the time period by agreement, cities days). Reasons for the extension should in extending the deadline." should get the applicant's consent to relate in some way to the specific appli- the extension in writing. Cities should cation. For example, the reason may be never rely on an informal verbal agree- the need to complete a certain study lution denying the conditional use permit ment. Consent is sometimes given by before acting on the application. unless Xcel Energy agreed to additional applicants at public meetings. In that The deadline may be extended in time. Xcel Energy agreed in writing to case, cities should ensure the meeting another way: where the applicant and a five-month extension. is recorded so that an accurate, written the city both agree additional time may The new deadline came and went. record can be made of the agreement. be taken. This approach does not require In the meantime, the consultant's work Cities should supplement the verbal that any reason be given for the exten- continued. About seven months after consent with a written document signed sion. It is sufficient that both parties the new deadline passed, the mayor by the applicant before the time period agree. told Xcel Energy its proposal would be expires. Although not required, it is a A recent case decided by the Court on the agenda at the planning commis- good idea to specify the precise date of Appeals underscores some of the pit- sion's next meeting and suggested that when the extension will lapse. This will falls cities can encounter when seeking some additional conditions were appro- avoid misunderstandings about the the agreement of applicants to extend priate. At that point, things came to a deadline later. Lastly, cities should not the statutory time period. The case of head. Xcel Energy demanded the city be lulled into thinking that a written Northern States Power Company v. City issue the permit. The company contend- and specific agreement is not necessary of Mendota Heights, 646 N.W.2d 919 ed it had not agreed to any extension because the applicant and the city are (Minn. Ct. App. 2002), dealt with an beyond the initial one. Xcel Energy on good terms. More than one city has application for a conditional use permit contended that its permit application learned that misunderstandings can arise for the upgrade of a power line. Before was automatically approved under the and relationships can change. The auto- the first 60-day period expired, the city 60-day law because the city did not live matic approval of an application contrary realized it needed more time to study within the time limits and brought suit to the city's wishes can be the unfortu- the application and extended the time to force issuance of the permit. nate result. r period. After that, the city proposed One of the arguments made by the that Xcel Energy hire an independent • consultant and that other cities along city was that Xcel Energy had waived Karen Cole is a shareholder at Kennedy its right to invoke the 60-day time limit & Graven where she practices in the area the power line route appoint a com- because it had acquiesced while studies of municipal law and litigation. E-mail: mittee to evaluate the design and continued after the time limit had passed. kcole@kennedy-graven.com. OCTOBER 2 0 0 2 MINNESOTA CITIES 1 9