Laserfiche WebLink
private property with the right of municipalities to restrict property use. In <br />this balancing process, constitutional property rights must be respected and <br />protected from unreasonable zoning restrictions. <br />Id. at 716-17. In light of these considerations, the New Hampshire Supreme Court said <br />that "unnecessary hardship" would, in the future, be established when a landowner <br />showed that (1) a zoning restriction as applied interferes with a reasonable use of the <br />property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment; (2) no fair and <br />substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and <br />the specific restriction on the property; and (3) the variance would not injure the public or <br />private rights of others. Id. at 717.14 <br />Had the Minnesota Legislature not defined "undue hardship" in Minn. Stat. <br />§ 462.357, subd. 6, we might consider the approach articulated in Simplex.~s A flexible <br />variance standard allows municipalities to make modest adjustments to the detailed <br />application of a regulatory scheme when a zoning ordinance imposes significant burdens <br />on an individual, and relief can be fashioned without harm to the neighbors, the <br />community, or the overall purposes of the ordinance. See David W. Owens, The Zoning <br />Variance: Reappraisal and Recommendations for Reform of aMuch-Maligned Tool, 29 <br />Colum. J. Envtl. L. 279, 317 (2004) ("If the variance power is to be used both as a <br />'4 These standards were subsequently codified. See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:33 <br />(Supp.2009): <br />is The factors set forth in Simplex are not dissimilar to the factors we embraced in <br />Stadsvold in construing "practical difficulties." See 754 N.W.2d at 331 (discussing <br />factors for consideration under the "practical difficulties" standard). <br />19 <br />