PCAgenda_05Feb22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Randy Nelson, et al., Respondents, vs. Wilson Townshop Board of Adjustments, et al...(2002) page 4 (8) No variance shall have the effect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in the district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by State Law. Minnesota law provides that "hardship" means that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7 (2002). Morgan argues that the board's findings on the criteria are legally sufficient and have a factual basis. Respondents argue that the decision was arbitrary and capricious because the board failed to comply with section 506.1. Respondents also contend that Morgan and Holmay failed to satisfy the requirement for a showing of hardship under Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7. We conclude that the minutes of the board's January 30, 2001 meeting and the text of the February 12, 2001 grant of a variance show that the board gave thorough consideration to the criteria set forth in section 506.1. 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Section 506.1 requires that for a grant of a variance, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must apply to the property, circumstances over which the owners of the property since enactment of the Wilson Township Zoning, Planning, and Building Ordinance have had no control. The board found exceptional circumstances here because, although the land is zoned ANR, only five or six acres are suitable for agriculture. The board also found that the land is unsuitable for permitted conditional uses of ANR land, such as recreational uses. The record supports the board's findings; aerial photographs show that all 21 acres are sloped and approximately 14 acres are heavily forested. The exceptional circumstances that the board found result from the natural condition of the land.