Laserfiche WebLink
What are the practical difficulties factors? <br /> The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. <br /> This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way <br /> but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to <br /> any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is <br /> for a building too close to a lot line, or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first <br /> factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. <br /> The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property <br /> not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of <br /> the particular piece of property, that is, to the land, and not personal characteristics or preferences <br /> of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a <br /> setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular <br /> piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. <br /> The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> Under this factor consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or <br /> otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance <br /> for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot <br /> line and if that fits in with the character of the area. <br /> Are there are other factors a city should consider? <br /> Yes. State statute provides variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the <br /> general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent <br /> with the comprehensive plan. So, in addition to the three- factor practical difficulties test, a city <br /> evaluating a variance application should make findings as to (I) whether or not the variance is in <br /> harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, and (2) whether or not the variance is <br /> consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br /> What about economic considerations? <br /> Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have already incurred <br /> substantial costs or argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State <br /> statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties. <br /> Rather, practical difficulties exists only when the three statutory factors are met. <br /> What about undue hardship? <br /> "Undue hardship" was the name of the three - factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law. <br /> Effective May 6, 2011 Minnesota Laws. Chapter 19, amended Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 to <br /> restore municipal variance authority in response to Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 <br /> N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court interi pre. <br /> the statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the ' u. <br /> test was not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a <br /> reasonable use in the absence of the variance. <br /> 2 <br />