03/10/2021 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

8 4. The Current Statutory Standards. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 was amended in 2011 to, among other things, remove the word hardship and make all area variance applications judged by the “practical difficulty” standard. The law defines practical difficulty. The purpose and effect of these amendments was to render both Stadsvold and Krummenacher ineffective—no longer valid in defining the meaning of aspects of practical difficulty or particular hardship. a. The variance must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of official controls. i. The variance should be consistent with and supported by the statement of purposes, policies, goals and objectives in the ordinances. ii. The variance should not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or plans in place in the municipality. b. Variances may only be granted when there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. i. The reasonable use component. a. This means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. This is consistent with the old test used for 20 years and adopted in Rowell v. Board of Adjustment, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989). ii. The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowners. a. This is the old self-imposed hardship rule. b. The rule used to be that if you took ownership of land with restrictions in place affecting its use, you could not obtain a variance from those restrictions because your hardship would be deemed self-imposed. Hedlund v. City of Maplewood, 366 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. App. 1985). c. In Myron v. City of Plymouth, 562 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. App. 1998), the court changed the above rule. Under Myron, a landowner is not automatically precluded from obtaining a variance in the above circumstances.