CC_Minutes_2010_1018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

15.99 subd. 2 (2004). Upon a citizens' petition for environmental review of appellants' project, the city tolled the running of the automatic approval period. Because the city and district court correctly interpreted an express exception in section 15.99 to allow for tolling of the deadline for agency action on the applications pending the environmental review process under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, we affirm. The city's motion to supplement the record is granted. DECISION Because a citizens' petition for an environmental- assessment worksheet under Minnesota's Environmental Policy Act initiated a process that must occur before agency action on a written request under Minn. Stat. 15.99, subd. 2 (2004), and that made it impossible to act within 60 days, the 60 -day deadline of section 15.99 is extended by subdivision 3(d) to 60 days after completion of the last environmental review process required by MEPA. Affirmed; motion granted. I believe the passage quoted by Counsel in his letter of 10/14/10 regarding this cited case, that the Minnesota Environmental Policies Act requires an environmental review process to occur before a City acts on a written request for action on a proposed development. The Court referenced the need for a governmental entity to consider economic, technical and environmental considerations before reaching a decision on matters before it which involve environmental review. has many interpretations, but nowhere does it state that all the environmental review be completed before a project is denied. The remarks, not in the opinion, could have been a reminder to Mendota Heights, whose initial approvals were granted before the Citizen's Petition came forward, that they, like Roseville, should always consider these important issues before reaching a decision. Roseville now has more than sufficient information, economic, technical, and environmental, from our EAW process and its 167 comments to make a well argued and defensible denial, especially when supported by Counsel's previous finding regarding the project's inability to meet either the Roseville's CUP criteria or industrial performance standards. Therefore, I again and respectfully ask that the Council deny the permit now based on our own code in place at the time of the initial application, the many substantive questions raised in the 167 published comments on the EAW, and the finding by Counsel regarding this project's failure to meet our existing code requirements. (Letter of October 14, 2010) E -Mail from Gregg Downing Attached