PCAgenda_05Feb22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Randy Nelson, et al., Respondents, vs. Wilson Townshop Board of Adjustments, et al... (2002) page 3 decision are legally sufficient and have a factual basis. Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, • 610 N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000). Morgan argues that the board's decision was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious because (1) the board considered the criteria set forth in the variance provision of the Wilson Township Zoning, Planning, and Building Ordinance that relates to variances and (2) the board's decision satisfies Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7 (2002), which defines a "hardship" for which a variance may be granted. Section 506.1 of the Wilson Township Zoning, Planning, and Building Ordinance provides that a variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: (1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and results from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of this Ordinance have had no control. • (2) That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. (3) That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (4) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege[s] that are denied by this Ordinance to owners of the other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. (5) The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. (6) The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance, or to property in the same zone. (7) Economic conditions or circumstances alone shall not be considered in the granting of a variance request.