My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-07-10 P & Z Packet
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
1994-2022
>
2018
>
2018-07-10 P & Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/6/2018 3:13:25 PM
Creation date
7/6/2018 3:10:52 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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
RELEVANT LINKS: <br /> 3. Essential character <br /> The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential <br /> character of the locality. Under this factor, consider whether the resulting <br /> structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the <br /> surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an <br /> encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will <br /> look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. <br /> B. Undue hardship <br /> 2011 Minn.Laws,ch.19, "Undue hardship"was the name of the three-factor test prior to a May 2011 <br /> amending Minn.Stat.§ <br /> 462.357,subd.6. change of law. After a long and contentious session working to restore city <br /> variance authority, the final version of HF 52 supported by the League and <br /> allies was passed unanimously by the Legislature. On May 5, Gov. Dayton <br /> signed the new law. It was effective on May 6, the day following the <br /> governor's approval. Presumably it applies to pending applications, as the <br /> general rule is that cities are to apply the law at the time of the decision, <br /> rather than at the time of application. <br /> Krummenacher v. city of The 2011 law restores municipal variance authority in response to a <br /> Minnetonka,783 N.W.2d 721 <br /> (Minn.June 24,2010. Minnesota Supreme Court case,Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka. It <br /> Minn.Stat.§462.357 subd, <br /> also provides consistent statutory language between city land use planning <br /> 6. statutes and county variance authority, and clarifies that conditions may be <br /> Minn.Stat.§394.27,subd.7. imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to, <br /> See Section 1,What is a and bear a rough proportionality to, the impact created by the variance. <br /> variance. <br /> In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the <br /> statutory definition of"undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" <br /> prong of the"undue hardship"test is not whether the proposed use is <br /> reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the <br /> variance. The new law changes that factor back to the "reasonable manner" <br /> understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the <br /> Krummenacher ruling. <br /> The 2011 law renamed the municipal variance standard from "undue <br /> hardship" to "practical difficulties,"but otherwise retained the familiar <br /> three-factor test of(1)reasonableness, (2)uniqueness, and (3) essential <br /> See Section IV-A,Harmony character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was <br /> with other land use controls. already in the county statutes. <br /> League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/15/2017 <br /> Land Use Variances Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.