08/11/2010 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

nonconforming setbacks would remain unchanged, while the proposed roof height is allowed by ordinance. Unsatisfied with the Court of Appeals' decision, Krummenacher appealed the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals' hardship standard, which has been used by that court for 20 years, is not consistent with the language in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subdivision 6. That statute states that in order to prove undue hardship, the property owner must show that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. It is not enough that the proposed use is generally reasonable; rather, the variance must be necessary in order to put the property to a reasonable use under conditions allowed by the official controls. The Supreme Court then sent the case back to the City to analyze the facts under the proper standard. Krummenacher will no doubt argue that Liebeler can use the garage without a variance. After all, it has been used as a garage since the 1940s. It is unlikely, therefore, that Liebeler will be able to get the variance. How much of an impact this case will have on the practices of individual cities depends on how the cities historically interpreted the statute. Note that Lino Lakes' zoning ordinance follows the statutory language in terms of setting forth the variance hardship standard: Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2): "'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...." City Zoning Ord. § 2, subd. 4(A)(1): "In considering all requests for [a] variance... the City shall make a finding of fact... that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." If Lino Lakes typically follows the literal meaning of the statute and its own ordinance, then the Krummenacher decision may have little impact. If, on the other hand, the City has sometimes allowed variances when they were not necessary in order for the property owner to reasonably use the property, then this decision will necessitate a change in practice. Variances are not to be granted unless the applicant establishes that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use without the variance. In the context of the current issue involving KI Auto, it does not appear that a variance is appropriate. The property has been in use for many years without needing a variance and it can continue to be used in the same manner without a variance. There is, therefore, no hardship as defined in the statute and the City Code. RRM: 144142