Laserfiche WebLink
Margaret Driscoll <br /> From: Tam McGehee [tam @mcgehee.info] <br /> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 3:27 PM <br /> To: Margaret Driscoll <br /> Subject: [FWD: RE: Rules Issues] <br /> Attachments: October 18 rebuttall.docx <br /> Margaret, <br /> This is the material I would like to have the Council have for this evening's meeting. Please get a copy to <br /> Chris Miller as well if he is still Acting City Manager. <br /> Thank you, <br /> Tam McGehee <br /> Original Message <br /> Subject: [SPAM] RE: Rules Issues <br /> From: "Downing, Gregg (ADM)" <Gregg.Downing @state.mn.us> <br /> Date: Mon, October 18, 2010 11:00 am <br /> To: Tam McGehee <tam @mcgehee.info> <br /> Cc: "Larsen, Jon (ADM)" <Jon.Larsen @state.mn.us> <br /> Ms. McGehee, <br /> In regard to your question to us, it is our standard guidance to RGUs (and others) when asked about the scope <br /> of the prohibitions on governmental actions when environmental review is required, that the prohibition <br /> applies only to actions that approve or authorize the project in question and NOT to actions to deny approval <br /> for the project. <br /> This opinion is based on the plain language of the stature and rule (which explicitly prohibit decisions to grant <br /> permits, approve projects and begin projects, but say nothing about denials of projects), and also the common <br /> sense conclusion that if a project fails to meet a black- and -white requirement for approval it is just a waste of <br /> time and resources to go through the environmental unit process and then deny approval anyway. <br /> I hope this answers your question to us. <br /> Gregg Downing <br /> Environmental Review Coordinator <br /> EQB <br /> 1 <br />