Laserfiche WebLink
III. PARTICULAR LAND USE PERMITS AND CONTROLS <br />A. Variances. <br />1. Key Principles. <br />a A variance allows a use of property in a manner otherwise forbidden by a zoning <br />ordinance by `varying" one or more of the perfotntance standards such as lot <br />size, setbacks, etc. Minn. Stat. § 462.357. <br />b. A variance is the exercise of governmental authority to grant relief from the <br />literal application of tetnis of a zoning ordinance Arcadia Development Corp. v. <br />City of Bloomington, 125 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1964). <br />c. The applicant has the burden of proof in showing that he or she satisfies the <br />criteria for the granting of a variance. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. <br />2. The Concept of Use Variances. <br />a. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 prohibits the granting of use variances. <br />b. A use variance would allow a landowner to undertake a use that is not allowed as <br />a peitnitted or conditional use in the District, and that is not already an existing <br />legal nonconfottnity in that specific District. <br />The granting of a use variance would be "per se" arbitrary and capricious, and <br />therefore subject to summary reversal upon district court review. See In Re <br />Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. 2008), Kismet Investors v. Benton County, <br />617 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. App. 2000), and In Re Appeal of Kenney, 374 I.W. 2d <br />271 (Minn. 1985) which discuss a narrow exception of allowable use variances. <br />This exception applies to variances involving established legal non -conforming <br />uses <br />3. The Standards for Granting Variances Prior to 2011. <br />a. The standards for granting variances changed substantially for both cities and <br />counties with the decisions in In re Stadsvold, 754 I.W. 2d 323 <br />(Minn.2008)(counties) and Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W. 2d <br />721 (Minn. 2010)(cities and towns). Stadsvold adopted a new standard/ criteria <br />to look at in deciding practical difficulties Krummenacher decided that an <br />applicant for a variance had to prove s/he had no reasonable use of the property <br />without a variance. <br />7 <br />