5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

03!09/2010 16:12 + BRIGGS IYtORGAN ~Y1PLS 1 PAGE A1/60 approxizxaately 13-acre poi•taon - of 4he E12,I.,'s March 30, 2009 requested 73.4acxe 1Aradital eacpansiou. SeeBreza v. Ctty of'~inr~eCs•ista, 725 N.W.2d 106, 114 (Mhm: 200~i). In Breza, a hon~eowuer bled with the City of Mir!uaetortlca axz application fora •weU.arad xeplacemeaat cxemprion of 5,737 square feet. ,Id, at 108. The city did not deny the application ttnril zaaore than 1 S zlxoz~.tbs later. ,I~ The hozxzeowzaer sued the city, axguixag that the requested wetland xeplacemexzt exemption was approved irz ;full larder § 15.99, su.bd.. 2 because the city Failed to tizz~ely a.ct witlait~, tlae statutory 60-day deadline..ird, at 109, The city conceded its violation of § 15,99 and that a portion of ttae exemption load been approved as a azzattex of law, but it argued that the approved exemption was just 400 square feet- t.e., the xnaxunum e~eznption the city had the authority t4 approve. Id Tlae Supreme Court held that ttae honueowx~.er's wetland. replacGUaent e~ernption land indeed been approved as a mattea• of law under § 15.99. Id, at 114. Bui the Court agreed with tote city atad held tha;k tlae scope ol'the appxoved eacetnptaon could not exceed t17te city's exemptsozt autlaoriiy. td.. Thus, while tlxe hoan.eov~rner was z'-ot legally entitled to receive the fi~11 requested, wetland replaceznent exe~>;~ption of 5,737 square feet, he was entitled to, aua.d did, xece]ve tlae xn„axittxxurrx •40D-squoxe-foot exemption tbat was with the city's approval authority. ,td. Hero, the City had at all tlzz~es the authorityundCF.B)~eza to appFOVC of the L'RL's z'equested CUP and JLicense amendments l'ox the approxizxzately 13^act-e portiazz c-1'tlae property that as already within tlae SWIG overlay district even fihough the 1/fi.L applied .faz the fu1173.4-acre landfill e~,pansion. Indeed, as to tha appro,cimately x3 sexes, tlae City's sole reasozz for deni.at was irzappliaabla, thus coxzzpelling approval. Azad, while Breen was decided oza § X 5,99 grounds, there is no ratiozaal ox xeasonable dist~c~tAOZa between a colut-ordexed approval uzadex § 15.99 or aaae on arbitrariness gxouncls. Bithex way, the requested zoning request is appxoved by the count as a matter of law to the extent of the application or to the (tallest extenti of the naunicipality'e approval autlzoxaty_ Tho C1ty was otherwise xequixed by bindiuag Mituiesota Supxezne Court and Minnesota Cous•G of Appeals precedent to approve of the •E12L1s requested CI.TI~ aA.d Licezase a~aaeaadznents foz just tl~.e Approximately 13 acres as a reasonable condition to the request. T;W947.114<1bU9pAppPob~BD jleyg41nrs1 f9J~doc ~_ y S