pf_02647 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

" HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES ably to the center line, free of easements either in favor of the public or owners of other property abutting on the street. Cities may specify the extent to which a proposed vacation affects existing utility easements, including reseIVing the I1gbt to maintain and continue utility ease- ments.1M However, where a piece of land was foIttlerly a platted street but the city vacated the street. its prior status would not prevent a dedication by statutory user if the city maintained It for a six·year perlod.95 If the city actually owns the dec1tcated street, which is an unusual case. and does not occur if the street has been dedicated by plat, the resolution vacating the street does not divest the city of Its rights to the property. It still may dispose of the property on which the street was located. An abutting property owner who suffers peculiar damages from the vacation of the street is entitled to compensation, but not if the only complaint Is that the person must travel further or over a poorer road In going to and from the property.98 For streets in private and certain platted teITItorles. there is also a dlstr:tct court procedure for vacation. m Before a court may grant an application for this. how- ever. the mayor of the city must receive personal notification of It at least 10 days before the court Intends to hear the application. The action of a councllin vacating a street would ordinarily be void if it does not hold a hearing or If It does not publish and post notice of the hearing for the pel10d of time the statute requires.98 (' How This Chapter Applies to Home Rule Charter Cities Land use control ordinances apply to charter as wen as statutory cities. GO If a charter contains conflicting provisions. refer to the chapter on the home rule charter city. Some charters contain provisions for the acquisition and disposition of real prop- erty. The statutes do not give directions for charter cities to follow. absent charter provisions. (- ..w~-" Legal Notes for Chapter 16 1. Hay v. Township of Grow, 296 Minn. I. 10. 206 N.W. 2d 19 (1973); NatfonaL Capital 11. ColpOratfon v. VUlage oj Inver Grove 12. Heights. 301 MInn. 336.222 N.W. 2d 660 13. (1974). 14. Sun Oft Company v. New Hope, 300 MInn. 15. 326, 220 N.W.2d 256 (1974). 16. MInn. Stat. 462.362. subd. 5. Minn. Stat. 462.366. Minn. Stat. 462.354, Bubd. 1 (1); see League memo Planning Commlsslons- Notes and Ordtnanœs, 430a.IB. MInn. Stat. 462.354, aubd. 1 (2). MInn. Stat. 462.353. Bubd. 4. Minn. Stat. 462.355. Minn. Stat. 462.355. Bubd. 1; see Chapœr 17 on Intergovernmental relnUons and the section of lhls chapter on ext.rntemtortnJ. zoning and 8ubdlvtsion control. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. MInn. Stat. 462.355. Bubd. 1. MInn. Stat. 462.355, subel. 2. MInn. Stat. 462.355. subd. 3. MInn. Stat. 462.356, 8ubd. 1. MJnn. Stat. 462.356, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. 462.354. subd. 2 For a complete discussiOn. see League pubUcatJon .Local and Regtonal.Ranntng fn Minnesota. Part 11, Regulatory Devices for Implementlng the Plan. 17. Colden LI. Ramapo Pkuutfng Board.. 285 N.E. 291 (N.Y. 1972); Construction Industry AssoctatfDn u. City oJPetalwna. 522 F.2d. 897 (1975); Uxbrtdge Assoctates u. Townshfp oj Cherry HfU. 48 LoW. 2695. (N.J. 1980); Minn. Stat. 360.063 to 360.069. See, McShane v. City oJFartbault. 292 N.W. 2d. 263 (1980). lB. Southern Burlington County NoAA.C.P. v. (- .248