ROAD APPROACHES AND TOWNSHIP AUTHORITY ����MADDIE CASH �MCASH@MNTOWNSHIPS.ORG�(763) 488-4055�

AGENDA

2

APPROACHES ON EXISTING ROADS �

• A landowner must obtain a permit from the township before installing an approach (Minn. Stat. § 160.18, subd. 1)
• A landowner is responsible for the cost and installation of a culvert
• A landowner must cover the cost for replacement due to damage or failure (not caused by the township)
• A township may adopt a resolution to provide culverts when necessary for a suitable approach

APPROACHES ON NEW CONSTRUCTION

• When a township constructs, relocates, or reconstructs a road, it is required to provide one suitable approach per parcel within the right-of-way. (Minn. Stat. § 160.18, subd. 2)
• The cost of any additional approaches is the responsibility of the landowner.
• Can a township limit the number of approaches?

ADDITIONAL APPROACHES & SPECIAL USE

• A landowner may request additional approaches but must obtain a permit and cover the costs of the culvert and its installation. (Minn. Stat. § 160.18, subd. 3)
• To ensure road integrity and proper drainage, the township determines the culvert's type and size

5

IN RE STOICK CREEK

Sometimes, one driveway is just not enough…

FACTS OF THE CASE

• Stoick Creek, LLC, owned a parcel of land in Jessenland Township. The property had one existing driveway providing access to a county road
• Stoick Creek applied to the Township for a permit to construct a second driveway on the same parcel
• The township denied the application, citing its ordinance, which generally limits properties to a single driveway unless the applicant can demonstrate a necessity for additional access

​

​

• The township board concluded that Stoick Creek did not establish a sufficient need for a second driveway and that granting the request would not be in the public’s best interest
• Stoick Creek challenged the township’s denial, arguing that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The district court upheld the township’s decision, affirming that the denial was rationally based on the township’s ordinances and policies
• The Court of Appeals ruled that the board's rationale for denying the landowner's permit application did not align with the regulatory purposes outlined in the statute granting the right of direct private access to an adjacent public highway

7

8

County HWY 38 (Cedar Lake Blvd.)

Farmland

Residential Development

Wells Lake

FIRST, LET’S TALK ABOUT MINN. STAT. § 160.18

The owner or occupant of property abutting upon a public highway, having a right of direct private access thereto, may provide such other or additional means of ingress from and egress to the highway as will facilitate the efficient use of the property for a particular lawful purpose, subject to reasonable regulation by and permit from the road authority as is necessary to prevent interference with the construction, maintenance and safe use of the highway and its appurtenances and the public use thereof.

9

HOLDING

• “The plain language of section 160.18, subdivision 3, indicates that a property owner's right of direct private access to a public highway is not limited to only one access point. The statute states that a property owner may have “such other or additional means of ingress from and egress to the highway as will facilitate the efficient use of the property for a particular lawful purpose.”
• In re Stoick Creek, LLC, 999 N.W.2d 915, 921 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023)

​

10

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR TOWNSHIPS? �

• Our authority to regulate this is limited and applies only to specific purposes!��“The statute expressly provides that a property owner's right of direct private access to a public highway is ‘subject to reasonable regulation by and permit from the road authority as is necessary to prevent interference with the construction, maintenance and safe use of the highway and its appurtenances and the public use thereof.’”
• In re Stoick Creek, LLC, 999 N.W.2d 915, 920 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023)

​

NOW…. TRIVIA!!��TOWNHALL THROWDOWN – FACTILE