The legislature finds and declares that the local governmental units within the metropolitan area are interdependent, that the growth and patterns of urbanization within the area create the need for additional state, metropolitan and local public services and facilities and increase the danger of air and water pollution and water shortages, and that developments in one local governmental unit may affect the provision of regional capital improvements for sewers, transportation, airports, water supply, and regional recreation open space. Since problems of urbanization and development transcend local governmental boundaries, there is a need for the adoption of coordinated plans, programs and controls by all local governmental units in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the metropolitan area and to ensure coordinated, orderly, and economic development. Therefore, it is the purpose of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 to (1) establish requirements and procedures to accomplish comprehensive local planning with land use controls consistent with planned, orderly and staged development and the metropolitan system plans, and (2) to provide assistance to local governmental units within the metropolitan area for the preparation of plans and official controls appropriate for their areas and consistent with metropolitan system plans.
Notes of Decisions
Nordmarken v. City of Richfield, 641 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 473.851. The MLPA states one of the purposes shared by the MLPA, the interim ordinance authority in the MPA, and the Metropolitan Council’s statutory duty to review comprehensive municipal plans for *348 “their compatibility with each other and conformity with…”
All. for Metro. Stability v. Metro. Council, 671 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 473.851 (2002). The Council argues creating a private right of action would have a negative effect on the MLUPA’s purpose.”
City of Lake Elmo v. Metro. Council, 685 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Minn.Stat. § 473.851. Under the MLPA, each local government must periodically prepare or amend its own comprehensive plan and submit it for review and comment by the Council as well as by adjacent governmental units.”
City of Lake Elmo v. Metro. Council, 674 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 473.851 (2002). The parties agree that, under the MLPA, the council is responsible for the long-range planning and programming of the sewer and transportation infrastructure of the Twin Cities metropolitan area.”
Blaine/Atl. Funding, LLC v. City of Blaine (D. Minnesota 2024).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 473.851 . Consequently, metro- area cities, including Blaine, are required to create and update a forward-looking “comprehensive plan” each decade.”
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.