Laserfiche WebLink
See Denney v. City of Duluth, 295 Minn. 22, 26, 202 N.W.2d 892, 894 (1972) ("It is <br />fundamental that a municipality's power to regulate land use by zoning exists by virtue of <br />authority delegated to it by the state."). But Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(b); grants the <br />City the discretion to permit the expansion of a nonconformity by ordinance. The City <br />provided a mechanism for expansion in section 300.29(g)(1), through a variance <br />application, and Krummenacher makes no argument that Liebeler's request for a variance <br />did not satisfy that section of the City Code. <br />Because the legislature gave the City discretion to authorize the expansion of <br />Liebeler's nonconforming garage, we hold that the City's decision to allow Liebeler to <br />seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a nonconformity was consistent with <br />Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le. <br />II. <br />We turn next to Krummenacher's argument that the City's decision must be set <br />aside because it was arbitrary and capricious. Municipalities have "broad discretionary <br />power" in considering whether to grant or deny a variance. VanLandschoot v. City of <br />Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503, 508 (Minn. 1983). We review such decisions "to <br />determine whether the municipality "was within its jurisdiction, was not mistaken as to <br />the applicable law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably, and to <br />determine whether the evidence could reasonably support or justify the determination." <br />In re Stadsvold, 754 N. W.2d 323, 332 (Minn. 2008) (internal quotation omitted). <br />10 <br />