Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment 4 <br />Caarrsit 14 <br />2. Variances <br />Variances are an exception to rules laid out in a zoning' ordinance. They are <br />permitted departures from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a <br />particular piece of property if strict enforcement would cause the owner <br />"undue hardship." Variances are generally relate to physical standards (such <br />as setbacks or height limits) and may not be used.to allow a use that is <br />prohibited in the particular zoning district. Essentially, variances allow the <br />landowner to break the rules that would otherwise apply <br />Minn. Stat, § 462.354, subd. 6. The law provides that requests for variances are heard by the board of <br />HANOBOOKFORNIMNESOTACI'M 14:19 <br />This chapter tact revised 12/2008 <br />adjustment and appeals; in many smaller communifies, the planning <br />commission serves that function. Generally, the board's decision is subject to <br />appeal to the city council. Under the statutory undue hardship standard, a <br />landowner is entitled to a variance if, and only if, the facts satisfy the three - <br />factor test for undue hardship, which are: <br />• The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. <br />• The landowner's situation is due to circumstances unique to the <br />property not caused by the landowner, The uniqueness generally <br />relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of <br />property and economic considerations alone cannot create an undue <br />hardship. <br />• The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the <br />l <br />locality. This factor generally contemplates whether the resulting <br />structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent <br />with the surrounding area. <br />Myron V. City ofplymmdh, 562 <br />Variances are to be granted only if strict enforcement of a zoning ordinance <br />N.w.za 21 Mm dApp. <br />Apr. 15, 1997), <br />7), a 531 <br />causes undue hardship.. A landowner who chased land knowing a variance <br />11^ lam' g <br />N.W.2d 815 (Mina 1998) <br />would be necessary in order to make the property buildable is not barred from <br />overruled on other grounds by <br />requesting a variance on the grounds the hardship was self-imposed. <br />Wensmaan Really, Inc. v. City of <br />Eagan, 734N.W.2d 623 (Mina <br />2007). <br />City ofMaplewood v. Pallukaa, <br />In granting a variance, the city may attach conditions, but the conditions must <br />1997 WL 53031, <br />(Minh, Ct: App. Febeb 11, 1999797 ). <br />31, <br />be reasonable and bear some relationshipto the purpose of the variance. <br />Mohler v. City of St. Louis Pork, <br />Broad discretion is permitted when denying a request for a variance, but there <br />643 N.W2d623 (Minn. . ct <br />App. 2002). <br />musg <br />t be legally sufficient reasons for the denial. The Board must make <br />Y <br />Nolen v. City ofRden Prairie, <br />findings concerning the reasons for the denial or approval and the facts upon <br />610 N.W2d 697 (Mina Ct. <br />which the decision was based. The findings must adequately address the <br />App. 2000). <br />statutory requirements. Best practice suggests seeking specific legal advice <br />Graham v. Itasca County <br />from the city attorney before making decisions on requests for variances. <br />Plamming Comm u, 601 N.W2d <br />461 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). <br />_ <br />Stotts v. Wright County, 478 <br />An applicant for a variance is not entitled to a variance merely because <br />992) d 802 (Minn. CG App. <br />similar variances were granted in the past. <br />HANOBOOKFORNIMNESOTACI'M 14:19 <br />This chapter tact revised 12/2008 <br />