§ 105.45

Application of Christenson · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Urban Council on Mobility v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources · 1980 2 citations

The DOT’s application for a permit is made pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 105.42 (1978), which requires permission from the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to construction that in any way changes a public water such as Blackhawk Lake. Minn. Stat. § 105.45 (1978) provides, in pertinent part, that:

The DOT’s application for a permit is made pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 105.42 (1978), which requires permission from the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to construction that in any way changes a public water such as Blackhawk Lake. Minn. Stat. § 105.45 (1978) provides, in pertinent part, that:

Central Baptist Theological Seminary v. City of New Brighton · 1992 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Matter of Eigenheer · 1990 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Application of Orr · 1986 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Excavation of Erickson Lake Ex Rel. Lahman · 1986 2 citations

Relators incorrectly analyze the permit law. Minn. Stat. § 105.45 (1984), which governs issuance of permits, states that permits shall be granted if the commissioner determines “the plans of the applicant are reasonable, practical, and will adequately protect public safety and promote the public welfare.” The state does not have the burden of proving the public will be harmed by relator’s action. Minn. Stat. § 105.45 specifically states “the applicant has the burden of proving that the proposed project is reasonable, practical, and will adequately protect public safety and promote the public welfare.” Although re-lators proved their activities have improved the lake, they did not alleviate concerns that a marina might be built or that riparian rights would be extended to nonriparian land owners. See Minn. Rules § 6115.0200, subp. 3B (1985). Given the commissioner’s expertise in the area, we will not say the commissioner erred in determining relator’s plan did not adequately protect the public welfare.

Relators incorrectly analyze the permit law. Minn. Stat. § 105.45 (1984), which governs issuance of permits, states that permits shall be granted if the commissioner determines “the plans of the applicant are reasonable, practical, and will adequately protect public safety and promote the public welfare.” The state does not have the burden of proving the public will be harmed by relator’s action. Minn. Stat. § 105.45 specifically states “the applicant has the burden of proving that the proposed project is reasonable, practical, and will adequately protect public safety and promote the public welfare.” Although re-lators proved their activities have improved the lake, they did not alleviate concerns that a marina might be built or that riparian rights would be extended to nonriparian land owners. See Minn. Rules § 6115.0200, subp. 3B (1985). Given the commissioner’s expertise in the area, we will not say the commissioner erred in determining relator’s plan did not adequately protect the public welfare.

In Re the Central Baptist Theological Seminary · 1985 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Roach v. Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources · 1984 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.