Olmsted County District Court File No. C8-01-1191
Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and
When a township adopts a resolution pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 394.32, subd. 3, to take over planning functions with respect to areas within the township for which the county has adopted official controls, the township's authority to perform the planning functions is limited by Minn. Stat. § 394.33, subd. 1, to enacting official controls that are consistent with or more restrictive than the official controls adopted by the county.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Peterson, Judge
This appeal is from a summary judgment granted to respondent county and intervenor city in a declaratory judgment action brought by appellant townships.
Appellants are townships within the boundaries of respondent Olmsted County. Before October 23, 2000, all but two of the townships had entered into cooperative agreements with Olmsted County that permitted the county to enforce its official controls within the townships.*fn1 On October 23, 2000, each of those townships adopted a resolution terminating its cooperative agreement pursuant to the terms of the agreement. On, or after, October 23, 2000, each of the appellant townships adopted a resolution taking over the adoption and enforcement of official controls within the township's boundaries, including areas for which Olmsted County had adopted official controls.
In April 2001, the townships filed a complaint alleging that Olmsted County has persisted in asserting its right to exercise official controls within the jurisdictions of the townships. The complaint sought a declaration of the parties' rights with respect to the adoption and enforcement of official controls and a judgment that each township has the legal capacity to adopt and enforce official controls and the county has no remaining authority to independently enforce its own official controls within the townships.
The City of Rochester was permitted to intervene in the action, and it asserted counterclaims against the townships. The townships asserted a cross-claim against the city, which was later dismissed pursuant to a stipulation. Each of the parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motions by the city and the county and dismissed the townships' complaint. The court denied the townships' motion for summary judgment on their declaratory judgment claim but granted their motion for summary judgment on the city's counterclaims.
This appeal by the townships followed. The city did not seek review of the summary judgment granted the townships on the city's counterclaims.
Is a township that adopts a resolution pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 394.32, subd. 3, to take over planning functions with respect to areas within the township for which a county has adopted official controls limited by Minn. Stat. § 394.33, subd. 1, to enacting official controls that are ...