§
Subdivision 1.Adopted by ordinance.
Official controls which shall further the purpose and objectives of the comprehensive plan and parts thereof shall be adopted by ordinance. The comprehensive plan must provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the comprehensive plan.
§
Subd. 2.Municipality may request inclusion.
Official controls adopted by a board shall apply to and be binding upon the county or any parts thereof including areas within the incorporated limits of a municipality, when requested by the municipality under section 394.32.
§
Subd. 3.Outside metro, state, federal land.
For the area within which official controls adopted by the board are effective, such controls shall apply to the use of land for both private and public purposes, provided that the need for adequate, timely and convenient public and semipublic services and facilities must receive due consideration in the formulation, administration and enforcement of all official controls and no land owned or leased by the federal or state government shall be subject to official controls of the county. With respect to the use of land for public purposes, the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply in the metropolitan area as described in section 473.121.
Notes of Decisions
Iron Rangers for Responsible Ridge Action v. Iron Range Resources, 531 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 12× “Did the county act improperly by imposing official controls on the state government through the conditional use permitting process in violation of Minn.Stat. § 394.24, subd. 3? ANALYSIS The MCEA seeks to prohibit construction of the project, alleging that the county and the…”
In Re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “" Minn. Stat. § 394.24 , subd. 7; see Kenney, 374 N.”
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 394.24, subd. 1 (2014). However, the county act also provides that an adopted comprehensive plan “must be the basis for official controls.”
Altenburg v. Bd. of Supervisors, 615 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Where the county has adopted official controls applicable to a township, the township’s ability to adopt its own controls is limited: The governing body of any town including any town with the powers of a statutory city pursuant to law may continue to exercise the authority to…”
Bruce Twp. v. Kevin Schmitz, Nathan A. Baum (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
“§§ 394.24 -.26 (2014). Counties are also authorized to issue conditional-use permits, which may be approved on a showing that the standards and criteria stated in the relevant ordinance are satisfied.”
Op. Atty. Gen. 59a-32 (Cr. Ref. 125a-66, 477b-34, 484a-1, 484e-1) (Minn. Att'y Gen. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. §§ 394.24 , 394.32 (1998). In order to provide for a continuity of regulation consistent with the plan adopted by the Board, the legislature has mandated a moratorium on development activities in the newly incorporated or annexed territory until zoning controls…”
Op. Atty. Gen. 59a-32 (Cr. Ref. 125a-66, 477b-34, 484a-1, 484e-1) (Minn. Att'y Gen. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. §§ 394.24 , 394.32 (1998). In order to provide for a continuity of regulation consistent with the plan adopted by the Board, the legislature has mandated a moratorium on development activities in the newly incorporated or annexed territory until zoning controls…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.