Laserfiche WebLink
SYLLABUS <br />1. Although Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a) (2008), restricts the ability <br />of property owners to expand their nonconforming uses, subdivision le(b) authorizes <br />a municipality to allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance. Because the legislature <br />gave the municipality discretion to authorize the expansion of a nonconforming use, the <br />decision to allow respondent to seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a <br />nonconformity was consistent with Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le. <br />2. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, to establish the "undue hardship" <br />required for a variance, a variance applicant must establish that "the property in question <br />cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance. <br />3. Because the municipality applied the wrong standard, a remand for <br />reconsideration of respondent's variance application under the correct standard is <br />appropriate. <br />Reversed and remanded. <br />OPINION <br />GILDEA, Justice. <br />This case involves the decision of respondent City of Minnetonka to grant a <br />variance to respondent JoAnne Liebeler so that she could expand her nonconforming <br />garage. Appellant Beat Knunmenacher is Liebeler's neighbor and he challenges the <br />City's decision. The district court upheld the City's variance, and the court of appeals <br />affirmed. See Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 768 N.W.2d 377, 384 (Minn. App. <br />2009). Because we conclude that the City applied the wrong standard to Liebeler's <br />2 <br />