05.03 - Road Vacation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�. � � • The public benefits of the proposed vacation. • The present and potential use of the land for access to public waters. • How the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. After receiving the commissioner's evaluation, the city should respond to the commissioner's concerns in its formal findings of fact granting or denying the vacation. c. Conducting the public hearing See also, LMCIT risk The fundamental purpose for holding a public hearing is to provide due management memo, Pu61ic xea,.jngs. process—a chance to speak and be heard—to all persons affected by the proposed vacation. Public hearings should include complete disclosure of what is being considered, and a fair and open assessment of the issues raised by the vacation. � Schaller v. Town of Florence, 259 N.W. 529 (Minn. 1935) Application ofBaldwin, 15 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1944) In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 (Minn. 1925); A.G. Op. 396- G-16, (Sept. 18, 1958) Application ofBaldwin, 15 N.W2d 184 (Minn. 1944); Petition ofKrebs, 6 N.W2d 803 (Minn. 1942) A public hearing must also include an opportunity for affected landowners and the interested public to see and hear all available information and to ask questions, provide additional information, express support or opposition, or to suggest modifications to the proposal. The primary focus of a public hearing should be to solicit public comment, not to persuade the public towards a particular viewpoint. If the council does not agree with sentiments expressed at the public hearing, the council can incorporate its position on the issues raised into its findings of fact in the formal resolution approving or denying the vacation. B. Standards for granting a vacation Minnesota statutes establish that the city council may vacate a street only upon a finding that the vacation is "in the interest of the public." This means the public must benefit, in some manner, from the vacation. The public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity of the vacation. A private benefit derived from the vacation does not bar the vacation, so long as a concurrent benefit to the public can be substantiated. Mere long-term, non-use of a street ground does not necessarily equate with a finding that the vacation is in the interest of the public. In reviewing vacations, Minnesota courts have emphasized that the future benefit to maintaining the dedicated properly should be given consideration. Far example, the Minnesota Supreme Court once overturned a vacation because the potential future use of the public grounds as public lake access was not properly taken into account. In another example, the Court upheld a denial of a petition for a vacation, because preservation of the underutilized property would help lessen the effects of future population growth in the area. Kangas v. Blueberry Tp., The decision to grant or deny a vacation is legislative in character. As a result, a 264 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. reVl2Wlri COUPi Wlll Oril set aside a vacation if it a ears that the evidence is 1978); Rader v. East Side g y pp Tp., Mi/le Lacs Counry, practically conclusive against the city, or that the council proceeded on an Minn, rrot xeponed tn erroneous theory of law, ar that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously against the N.W.2d, 1987 WL 19770 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES