PL PACKET 03212006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 15 • Minn:Stat.§15 99,subd.2(a). There are other time limits and requirements contained in the Municipal Minn.Stat.§462 358,subd.3b. Planning Act, and there may be similar time provisions in the zoning ordinance. The 60-day rule generally supersedes those time limits and requirements, except that it does not apply to subdivision and plat approvals. Cities should adopt a procedure or set of procedures to ensure planning staff, the planning commission, and the city council follow the 60-day rule. City staff should develop a timetable and guidelines to ensure no application is deemed approved because the city could not act fast enough to complete the review process. In many situations, it may be necessary to extend the 60-day period.Notice to the applicant of the extension should be given early in the first 60-day period if a delay appears possible. VII. Variances from the zoning ordinance Minn.Stat.§§462.354,subd z Variances can only be granted by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, and 462.357,subd.6. which may be a separate board,by the planning commission, or by the council.When a city has a zoning ordinance, it must,by ordinance, create a Board of Appeals and Adjustments whose powers are specified by law. The Board must follow the law when granting or denying variances. • Lugar v. City Minn.1980 . z9s A variance is permission to vary from literal provisions of the zoning N.W.2d 609(Minn.1980). ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue Minn. Stat.§462.357,subd.6. hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under Mohler v City of St.Louis Park, consideration. A request for a variance from the zoning ordinances will be 643 N.W.2d 623(Minn Ct. granted upon showing undue hardship to a landowner in a unique situation. App.2002)• "Undue hardship"is specifically defined by law and generally means the Rowell v Board ofAdjustment, property cannot be put to a reasonable use if- the conditions of the zoning 446 N.W.2d 917(Minn.Ct. ordinances are followed;the landowner's particular circumstances are unique App.1989). and not self-created; and, granting a variance will not alter the essential Hedlund v.City of Maplewood, character of the locality. Economic hardship alone will not constitute undue 366 N.W.2d 624(Minn.Ct. hardship if some reasonable use exists under the terms of the zoning App 1985). ordinance. However,practical difficulties may justify a variance,and functional and aesthetic considerations may be taken into account. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments should review the law concerning variances before a variance is granted Myron v.City of Plymouth,562 Variances are to be granted only if strict enforcement of a zoning ordinance N.W.2d 21 (Minn Ct.App.Apr. causes undue hardship. A landowner who purchased land now d kin a variance 15,1997),aff'd,581 N.W.2d p urcaseg 815(Minn 1998). would be necessary in order to make the property buildable is not barred from requesting a variance on the grounds the hardship was self-imposed. 15-18 HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES This chapter last revised 12/15/2004