2009-10-06 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page70fl7 Bridge Place This application involved a project located approximately two miles from Loring Hill, near the Mississippi River and in a downtown zoning district with no height limitation. A setback variance was required only because the project was residential (surrounding commercial buildings are not subject to the same setback restrictions). This application also was submitted more than one year before Plaintiff's application. Even if Plaintiffs property were similarly situated to the aforementioned properties, a plaintiff must further demonstrate there was no rational basis for differential treatment. Barstad at 884. In examining if there was a rational basis for different treatment, the courts are "properly deferential as municipalities manage their affairs. A court ought to invoke its power only when there is no arguable basis for a municipality's decision." Minnetonka Moorings, 367 F. Supp.2d at 1255. As discussed below, the evidence shows that Plaintiffs proposed project did not meet the applicable zoning standards and requirements in several respects and that there was at least one rational basis for denying Plaintiff s application and, thus, for differential treatment. Furthermore, a municipality cannot be bound by previously issued variances. See Frank's Nursery Sales v. City ofRoseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 607 (Minn. 1980) (stating "a municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing the ordinance even if the property owner relied to his detriment on prior city action. "). If a zoning authority were so bound, the entire zoning scheme could be undermined by one erroneously issued variance. In re Johnson, at 301 ("[A]n applicant for a variance is not entitled to a variance merely because similar variances were granted in the past. Otherwise, the granting of one variance would likely result in the destruction of the entire zoning scheme."). It necessarily follows that an equal protection claim does not arise simply because a similar variance was granted in the past. The applicant seeking the variance must show that he was entitled to the variance; it is not sufficient to assert that the applicant was entitled merely because a similar variance was previously granted. See Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N.W.2d 802, 806 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (refusing to allow evidence of a neighbor's setback variance as a substitute for lack of evidence on the criteria established in the ordinance). In Campbell, the plaintiffs argued that they were denied equal protection because the board of adjustment ("BOA") required them, but not other variance applicants, to satisfy all of the applicable zoning requirements, including the requirement to demonstrate hardship. Campbell v. Wright County Board of Acjjustment, 2005 WL 2129340 at *2-3 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2005). The court rejected plaintiffs' argument: Because the BOA previously misapplied the [zoning ordinance] by not requiring [other] applicants to prove a hardship and the requirements in section 502.3, appellants are asking this court to require the BOA to continue misapplying the ordinance. But "[a]n applicant for a variance is not entitled to a variance merely because similar variances were granted in the past. Otherwise the granting of one variance would likely result in the destruction of the entire zoning scheme." Id at *3 (quoting In reJohnson, at 301). Finally, the evidence established that applicants for variances must demonstrate hardship through their http://www.minnlawyer.comluserfiles/pdf/Order%20(Final).htm 9/17/2009