5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

approximately 13-acre portion - of the ERL's March 30, 2009 requested 73.4-acre landfill expansion. See Breza v. City of Minnetrista, 725 N.W.2d 106, 1 14 (Minn. 2006). In Breza, a homeowner filed with the City of Minnetonka an application for a wetland replacement exemption of 5,737 square feet. Icl. at T08. The city did not deny the application until more than 18 months later. Id. The homeowner sued the city, arguing that the requested wetland .replacement exemption was approved in full under ~ ] 5.99, subd. 2 because the city failed to timely act within the statutory 60-day deadline. Icl. at. 109. The city conceded its violation of § 15.99 and that a portion of the exemption had been approved as a matter of law, but it argued that the approved exemption was just 400 square feet- i.e., the maximum exemption the city had the authority to approve. Icl. The Supreme Court held that the homeowner's wetland replacement exemption had indeed been approved as a matter of law under ~ 15.99. Id. at 114. But the Court agreed with the city and held that the scope of the approved exemption could not exceed the city's exemption authority. Id. Thus, while the homeowner was not legally entitled to receive the full requested wetland replacement exemption of 5,737 square feet, he was entitled to, and did, receive the maximum 400-square-foot exemption that ~>`~as within the city's approval authority. Id. Here, the City had at all times the authority under Brew to approve of the 1~RL's requested CUP and License amendments for the approximately 13-acre portion of the property that is already within the SWF overlay district even though the ERL applied for the full 73.4-acre landfill expansion. Indeed, as to the approximately 13 acres, the City's sole reason for denial was inapplicable, thus compelling approval. And, while Breza was decided on ~ 15.99 grounds, there is no rational or reasonable distinction between a court-ordered approval under § 15.99 or one on arbitrariness grounds. Either way, the requested zoning request is approved by the court as a matter of law to the extent of the application or to the fullest extent of the municipality's approval authority. The City was otherwise required by binding Minnesota Supreme Court and Minnesota Court of Appeals precedent to approve of the ERL's requested CUP and License amendments for just the approximately 13 acres as a reasonable condition to the request. T:\0742\I40fi1CiryAppFeb\F[0 Report_6nal (2).doc 3-18