Laserfiche WebLink
a <br /> ) HORSEY" <br /> Mr.Michael Mornson <br /> May 31,2011 <br /> Page 2 <br /> virtually every case since properties generally can be put to some reasonable use without a <br /> variance. <br /> In response to the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Krummenacher.v. <br /> Minnetonka,the Minnesota Legislature at its 2011 session amended Minnesota Statutes, Section <br /> 462.357,subd. 6,to change the standard for granting variances from the."undue-hardship <br /> standard,to require the applicant to establish that there are"practical difficulties"in complying <br /> with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties"is defined as follows: <br /> "Practical difficulties"as used in connection with the granting of a-variance _ <br /> means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br /> permitted by the zoning ordinance;the plight of the landowner is due to <br /> circumstances unique to the'property not created by the landowner;and the <br /> variance,if granted,will not alter the essential-character of the locality." <br /> Currently Section 152.245(C)of the City Code contains the"undue hardship"standard <br /> for granting variances,and needs to be updated to provide for the"practical difficulties"standard <br /> now contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 426.357,subd. 6,in order to comply with the <br /> current Minnesota law for granting variances. <br /> Should you have any questions please give me e.call. <br /> Yours Truly, <br /> J o P.Gilligan <br /> JPG/pmh <br /> cc: Kim Moore-Sykes <br /> DORSEY$WHITNEY LLP <br />