My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 06282011
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2011
>
CC PACKET 06282011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2015 9:58:23 AM
Creation date
4/30/2014 4:43:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Supplemental fields
City Code Chapter Amendment
Keywords
Missing
Ordinance #
Ordinance Summary
Ordinance Title
Planning File #
Property Address
Property PIN
Publication Newspaper
Publication Title
Publication Type
Resolution #
Resolution Summary
Resolution Title
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
31 <br />O O <br />j EAGUE of CONNECTING & INNOVATING <br />MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 <br />CITIES <br />2011 Variance Legislation <br />The changes, which are now in effect, may require some cities to change ordinances or <br />statutory cross-references. <br />After a long and contentious session working to restore city variance authority, the final version of <br />HF 52 supported by the League and allies was passed unanimously by the Legislature. <br />On May 5, Gov. Dayton signed 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amending Minnesota <br />Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to <br />Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N. W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). The law also <br />provides consistent statutory language between Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462 and the county <br />variance authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 394.27, subdivision 7. <br />In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the statutory definition of <br />"undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test is not <br />whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence <br />of the variance. The new law changes that factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding <br />that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. <br />The new law was effective on May 6, the day following <br />the governor's approval. Presumably it applies to <br />pending applications, as the general rule is that cities are <br />to apply the law at the time of the decision, rather than at <br />the time of application. <br />Learn More <br />Read more about variances in: <br />Land Use Variances: Frequently <br />Asked Questions <br />The new law renames the municipal variance standard <br />from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retains the familiar three -factor test <br />of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new <br />to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: "Variances shall only be <br />permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and <br />when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." <br />In addition, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those <br />conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the <br />variance. <br />Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. <br />LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 14SUNIVEHSI'rYAVE. WEST PHONE: (651)281-1200 FAx: (651) 281-1298 <br />INSURANCE TRUST 5'r. PAUL., MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 wrn: www.lMconc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.