Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

..-----. ( \ I ( \'_/ August 10, 20081 Volume 21 No. 15 Variance-County denies area variance, finding no "adequate hardship" unique to the property Landowners argue county should have applied a less stringent "practical difficulties" standard Citation: In 1'e Stadsv"old, 2008 WL 2445493 (Minn. 2008) MINNESOTA (06119/2008)~Cyril and Cynara Stadsvold owned an undeveloped lot on a lake in the county. The lot was a grandfathered non- conforming lot under the County's Shoreland Managenient Ordinance (the ordinance). After their application for a site permit was approved by the county, the Stadsvolds constructed a house and garage on the lot. In October 2004, it was discovered that the house and garage were not built within the setback requirements of the ordinance. The Stadsvolds , applied to the county Board of Adjustment (the Board) for an area vari- ance from the setback requirements. The Board denied the requested vari- ance. In doing so, the Board considered the variance application as a be- fore-the-fact. variance (as if the variance had been sought before the house and garage had been built). It concluded that the Stadsvolds showed "no adequate hardship unique to the property" that would support the vari- ance. The Board. said this. was because there was adequate room on the lot to obtai.o. a reasonable use of the property without a variance. The Stadsvolds appealed. The district court and then the court of ap- peals found in the county's favor; The Stadsvolds again appealed. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. On appeal, the Stadsvolds had argued that the Board erred in ap- plying an "adequate hardship" standard when determining whether to grant the variance. They asserted that the Board should have applied a less stringent "practical difficulties" standard to their area variance ap- . plication. They pointed to the Minnesota law governing a county's pow- er to grant a variance. Minnesota Statute S 394.27, subd. 7, provided that: "Variances shall, only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control in cases when there are practical difficulties or particular hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of any official control. . . ." They argued that the Board erred when applying the "particular hardship" standard because that standard applied only to use variances, while the less stringent "practical difficulties" standard applied to area variances. The Supreme Court of Minnesota agreed. Setting precedent, the Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed the dif- ference between the "practical difficulties" and "particular hardship" standards. The court found that because S 394.27, subd. 7 only defined "hardship" and not "practical difficulties," it was unclear from the stat- ..' @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 5 87