Laserfiche WebLink
to expire, any other process is required by state <br />statute, federal law ar a court order, and has not <br />been completed; (3) the municipality had not yet <br />adopted a comprehensive guide plan at the time <br />that it adopted the moratorium; or (4) before the <br />effective date of the 2004 amendments, MnDOT <br />had requested the city to review its airport master <br />plan, and the moratorium concerns an area affected <br />by that master plan. <br />(ii) The maximum duration of the extension depends <br />on which of the four circumstances is present. 'The <br />first two circumstances permit an extension of up <br />to 120 days following receipt of the long-awaited <br />decision of the other agency. The third <br />circumstance permits an extension of up to an <br />additional one year, The fourth circumstance <br />permits an extension of up to 18 months. <br />viii} An interim ard.inance naay not extend the tzme <br />~.eadline for agency action set forth in Sinn. tat. <br />§ 15 , 99, Minnesota's automatic approval statute, <br />with respect to any application filed prior to the <br />effeCt~ Y W Lime of th~J ~nte.Ll~n orC~~nan~/er <br />An addi~ioa~ cort~~rnose ~~~ a a n~o~°a~or~~ :The ~d~c~l <br />-~e~v~ce~ v. av~~e decision. <br />a. The Minnesota Court of Appeals' stated in Medical <br />Services, Inc. v. City of Savage, x-87 N.W.2d 263, 267 <br />(Minn. Ct. App. 1992) that "[a] municipality may nor <br />arbitrarily enact an interim moratorium ordinance to <br />delay or prevent a single project." (emphasis added). <br />(i) Where the government's sole purpose in enacting a <br />measure was to prevent a particular project, the <br />measure was invalid. See e.g. Offen v. County <br />Council for Prince George's County, 62S A.2d <br />424 (Md. App. 1993), rev'd, 639 A.2d 1070 (1994} <br />(citing Medical Services) (evidence was sufficient <br />to support a finding of "zoning estoppel" where the <br />~~ <br />