My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.4. SR 05-17-2010
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2010
>
05-17-2010
>
5.4. SR 05-17-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 3:05:21 PM
Creation date
5/14/2010 2:29:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
5/17/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
622
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
b. Even if the application predated the effective date of the <br />moratorium, one could argue that a city still may deny <br />the application based on the moratorium, notwithstanding <br />the 2004 amendment to Minn. Stet. § 462.357 subd. 4 <br />(purporting to forbid an interim ordinance from <br />"extend[ing] the time deadline for agency action set forth <br />in section 15.99 with respect to any application filed <br />prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance."} <br />(i) There is a difference between an ordinance that <br />purports to extend the deadline for agency action <br />(an action that is referenced in the 2004 <br />amendment), and an agency that relies upon the <br />existence of a moratorium as the basis for denying <br />a particular application (an action which is not <br />referenced in the 2004 amendment). <br />TV. When the law changes after some but not all tend-use applications have <br />been granted, the local governar-ent's authority may be further <br />restricted. <br />A. If preliminary plat approval has been given (and a development <br />agreement has been entered into with the developer), but "regime <br />change" occurs in a manner that prompts the newly elected council to <br />use the final-plat-approval requirement to effectively negate the effect <br />of the prior council's decisions, the later denial is likely unlawful. <br />Semler Construction v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. Ct. <br />App. 2003}. <br />1. As the Court of Appeals noted in Semler, "After the city grants <br />approval of a preliminary plat, the statute allows the applicant <br />to seek final approval. Minn. Stet. § 462.3 5 8, subd. 3b. If the <br />applicant has complied with the conditions and requirements set <br />out in the preliminary approval, the municipality must grant <br />final approval within 60 days. Id. If the municipality fails to <br />act, the application will nonetheless be deemed approved. Id. <br />Thus, the statute places primary emphasis on the preliminary <br />plat approval; once the conditions and requirements therein are <br />satisfied, the plat mechanically receives final approval. See id." <br />Semler, 667 N.W.2d at 462-63. <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.