Laserfiche WebLink
What did the 2011 law change? <br /> The 2011 faw changed the first factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding that had <br /> been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. The 2011 law renamed the <br /> municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise <br /> retained the familiar three - factor test of (I) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential <br /> character. The 2011 law also provides that: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in <br /> harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terns of the variance <br /> are consistent with the comprehensive plan." <br /> Can a city grant a use variance? <br /> Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to allow a particular use of their property that would <br /> otherwise not be permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed "use <br /> variances" as opposed to "area variances" from dimensional standards. Use variances are not <br /> generally allowed in Minnesota —state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use <br /> that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. For <br /> more information, see Minn. Stat. $ 462.357. <br /> Is a public hearing required? <br /> Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, <br /> but many practitioners and attomeys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all <br /> variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help <br /> determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. <br /> What is the role of neighborhood opinion? <br /> Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While <br /> city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in <br /> considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the <br /> statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help <br /> the city in addressing these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not <br /> form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. If neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for <br /> the variance decision, the decision could be overturned by a court. <br /> What is the role of past practice? <br /> While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the <br /> practical difficulties factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, <br /> cities are not generally bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds that it <br /> is issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider the possit•dit, of <br /> amending the ordinance to change the standard. <br /> When should a variance decision be made? <br /> A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota's 60 -day rule and must be approved or <br /> denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for <br /> an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60 -day period. <br /> Under the 60 -day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is <br /> deemed an approval. For more information, see Minn. Stat. & 15.99. <br /> 3 <br />