2010 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Attachment 1 Taken from the LMC Bulletin, authored by Tom Grundhoefer, general counsel The court ruling holds cities to a much stricter standard, which considerably limits variance opportunities. (Published Jul 21, 2010) The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a decision that changed the longstanding interpretation of the statutory standard for granting zoning variances. In the case of Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test is not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is reasonable use in the absence of the variance. This is a much stricter standard, which considerably limits variance opportunities. The decision The City of Minnetonka issued a variance to a residential property owner permitting the expansion of a legal, non -conforming garage. The city, relying on a 1989 Court of Appeals decision, concluded that the grant of the variance was reasonable. The city's decision was challenged by an adjacent property owner. Both the District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that the city's decision was appropriate. On June 24 the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and found the city's decision impermissible. The Supreme Court examined the statutory definition of "undue hardship" in Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, and concluded that city authority to issue a variance is limited to those very rare cases where the property cannot be put to "a reasonable use" without the variance. This establishes a high threshold for both the city and the property owner when considering variance requests. The Supreme Court reviewed the parallel county authority that allows for a variance in situations of "practical difficulties" or "hardship." The Supreme Court found that the city authority was more limited because it did not contain the "practical difficulties" provision. The court explicitly recognized that it was changing a longstanding standard that cities have relied on in considering variance requests. In particular, the court specifically rejected a 1989 Court of Appeals interpretation of the phrase "undue hardship," which allowed for the grant of a variance in circumstances where the "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." The Supreme Court stated that "unless and until the Legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that her property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance."