Laserfiche WebLink
City's decision to grant the variance to Liebeler, concluding that the City's decision was <br />not"arbitrary and capricious." <br />Krummenacher appealed to the court of appeals. On appeal, he raised three issues. <br />First, he argued that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a) (2008), prohibits the City from <br />granting a variance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use. Krummenacher, 768 <br />N.W.2d at 380-81. Second, he argued that the City's approval of the variance request <br />was "arbitrary and capricious" because Liebeler had failed to meet the "undue hardship" <br />standard of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. See Krummenacher, 768 N.W.2d at 382-84. <br />Last, he argued that the district court erred in refusing to compel additional discovery by <br />the City. See id. at 384. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision in all <br />respects. <br />We granted Krummenacher's petition for review. On appeal to our court, <br />Krummenacher advances the same three arguments he made to the court of appeals.2 <br />I. <br />We turn first to Krummenacher's argument that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le, <br />prohibits a municipality from granting a variance that allows for the expansion of a <br />nonconforming structure. Section 462.357, subdivision le, provides in relevant part: <br />(a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land <br />or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control <br />under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, <br />2 On January 26, 2010, Liebeler filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that we should <br />dismiss the case on the grounds that construction of the expanded garage has been <br />completed, rendering Krummenacher's claims moot. The motion to dismiss is denied. <br />2 <br />