Laserfiche WebLink
determined that the expansion of the garage was a reasonable use of the property and that <br />the request met the other requirements of the statute. Specifically, as reflected in the City <br />Council Resolution, the City found that "the proposal is reasonable" and with respect to <br />"undue hardship," that "[t]here is an undue hardship due to the topography of the site, <br />width of the lot, location of the driveway and existing vegetation." <br />The plain language of the statute and our precedent compel us to reject the City's <br />invitation to adopt Rowell's interpretation of "undue hardship." The statute provides that <br />to prove "undue hardship," the variance applicant must show that "the property in <br />question cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, <br />subd. 6. Notwithstanding this language, the court of appeals concluded that "[t]his <br />provision does not mean that a property owner must show the land cannot be put to any <br />reasonable use without the variance." Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922. The court of appeals <br />essentially rewrote the statute to mean that a municipality may grant a variance when the <br />"property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited <br />by the ordinance." Id. at 922. Although the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard has <br />been used for over 20 years, we simply cannot reconcile that standard with the plain <br />language of the statute. <br />The Rowell standard is also inconsistent with our precedent. In support of the <br />application of a "reasonable manner" standard for determining "undue hardship," Rowell <br />cites Curry v. Young, 285 Minn. 387, 173 N.W.2d 410 (1969), for the proposition that a <br />variance is "required where a setback requirement would force a property owner to build <br />a much smaller structure." Id. at 922. The version of Minn. Stat. § 462.357 in effect <br />13 <br />