pf_02405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

face undue hardship in the absence of such action. See Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. 6(2) (1988). However, the hardship for which relief is sought may not, as is the case here, be created by the applicant. This rule is based in common sense and the public policy purposes of the zoning codes. If an individual is allowed to create his own hardship constituting an exception to the ordinance, every other person subject to the ordinance could do likewise, thus frustrating the general purpose of enforcing uniformity through zoning. See Newcomb v. Teske, 225 Minn. 223, 227, 30 N.W.2d 354, 356 (1948). Rekuski was given adequate opportunity to present his case, both to the City and to the district court. The City postponed its consideration of this matter, on more than one occasion, to allow Rekuski an opportunity to fully prepare and present his case. The record shows no procedural irregularity, either before the City or the district court, which points to arbitrary consideration of this case. Indeed, there seems to have been extraordinary procedural steps taken to ensure Rekuski had every opportunity to present his very heavily documented case. The decision of the Çity was neither substantially nor procedurally arbitrary or capricious. 2. Rekuski claims the City is equitably estopped from enforcing its zoning ordinance in his case. The supreme court has rejected this theory as applied against municipalities in zoning cases. A "municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing the [zoning] ordinance even if the property owner - 3- ".