Laserfiche WebLink
Gay. Dayton Sig�s Variance Legislation into Law <br />Gov. Dayton Signs Variance <br />Legisl�tion into Law � <br />The changes, whicl� are now in effect, may require some cities ta change <br />ordinances ar statutory cross-references. <br />(Published May I1, 2011) <br />The League and a long list oia�lies are finally able to celebrafe having a fx in <br />place to restare city variance authority. After a iong and contentious sessior� <br />working on resolving this issue, the final version o#'HF 52 was supparted by the <br />League and passed unanimously by the Le�islature. <br />O� May S, Gov. Dayton si�ned 20l � Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amending <br />Minnesota Statutes, sec#ion 462.357, subdivision 6 to rescore municipal <br />variance authority in response to Krur��l�renacher v_ City vfMinnetonka, 783 <br />N.W.2d 72l (Minn. June 24, 2010}. The la�v a�so provides consistent statUtory <br />Ianguage between Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462 and the county �aria�ce <br />autharity ofMinnesota Statutes, section 39�4.27, suhdivision 7. <br />I� Krumrnenaeher, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the <br />stat�tory defnition af"undue hardshi�" and heid that ihe "reasonable use" prong <br />of the "�andue hardship'' test is not whetY�er the proposed use is reasonable, b�t <br />rather whether tI�ere is a reasonabEe use in the absenee of t�e variance. The new <br />law changes that factor back to the "reaso�able manner'' understandin� that had <br />been used by some lower coarts prior to tlte K�-�n�rnenucher ruling. <br />The new law was effective on May 6, the day following the govez-nor's approval. <br />Presumably it app[ies to pendinb applications, as the �eneral rule is that cities are <br />to apply t�ie Iaw at the time of the decision, rather tha�l at the titne of application. <br />The new law renarnes the municipa� variance standard from "�andue hardship" to <br />"practicai diffic�lties," but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1} <br />reasonableness, {2) uniqueness; and (3} essentia� character. Also included is a <br />sentence new ta city variance auiharity that was already in the county statutes_ <br />"Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with The general <br />purposes and intent of the ardinance and when the terms of the variance are <br />co�sistent with the co�t-►prehe�si�e pian." <br />So in evaluating variance requests under the ne.�- law, cities should adopt <br />findinbs acfdressing the follawing questions: <br />. Is the variance in harnu�ny tivith the purposes and intent of the ordinance? <br />. Is the variance consistent with ihe cornp�°ehen,si}�e plan? <br />. Does tl�e proposal put property to use in a recrsonable n�anner? <br />. Are there unique rrrcurr�starrce.s to the property not created by the landowner? <br />. Wiil the variance, if granted, alter the esseniial charac�es� of the locality? <br />Some cities may have ordinance provisions that codified the o�d statutory <br />]anguage, or that have their own set of standards. For those ci�ies, tne question <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />rz�htrnl:f�eJ/llmetro-inet.uslardenhilfslPlannin�lPlanning Cases1201 111 1-�12 - Variance Or... 5/31/20I 1 <br />