10-24-2007 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

determine whether it was arbitrary or capricious, or whether the reasons articulated by the municipality do not have the slightest validity or bearing on the general welfare, or whether the reasons were legally sufficient and had a factual basis. Id. A municipality has broad discretionary power when considering an application for variances. Id. at 507- 08. The fact that a reviewing court may have arrived at a different conclusion does not invalidate the judgment of the city officials if they acted in good faith and within the broad discretion accorded them by statutes and the relevant ordinances. Id. at 508. a. Statutory Standard Appellants argue that the city granted the variances in violation of governing state statute and municipal ordinance. Minnesota law provides that a zoning authority may: hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under 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. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2) (1998). The Eden Prairie City Code, §11.76, subd. 1, (1984) also authorizes the granting of variances and tracks the language of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2). Appellants argue that the city council did not grant the variances for a hardship but merely because they found the new plan reasonable, Appellants urge that the city may grant a variance for undue hardship only if the landowner can put the property to no other reasonable use. See VanLandschoot, 336 N.W.2d at 509 (upholding denial of variances because even with denial there was a reasonable use for property); Tuckner v. Township of May, 419 N.W.2d 836, 839 (Minn. App. 1988) (upholding denial of variances for failure to establish undue hardship because landowner can continue to use the property for its present reasonable use). The city responds that the correct standard is whether the proposal was reasonable under the circumstances, and would not be allowed except by granting the variances. In Rowell, this court squarely addressed the question and explained that the statutory undue hardship requirement "does not mean that a property owner must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance." Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917, 922 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1989). Rather, the undue hardship standard requires a - 3 0 -