Laserfiche WebLink
Similarly, in Stadsvold, we remanded a variance application to the county board <br />because the board applied the wrong standard: <br />The Board, using an "adequate hardship" standard, did not consider <br />practical difficulties. The Stadsvolds argue the Board's decision was <br />therefore arbitrary and capricious. The Board did not have the benefit of our <br />holding in this case regarding "practical difficulties." We cannot. tell <br />whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, <br />remand is required to allow the Board to consider the Stadsvolds' variance <br />application in light of our holding that applications for area variances are to <br />be considered using the "practical difficulties" standard in Minn. Stat. <br />§ 394.27, subd. 7. <br />Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 332. Our precedent therefore supports the conclusion that a <br />property owner is entitled to have his or her variance application heard under the correct <br />legal standard, which supports a remand in this case. A remand is particularly <br />appropriate in this case because a property owner seeking to utilize her property should <br />not be penalized due to the City's application of the wrong legal standard. We reverse <br />and remand the matter to the City for renewed consideration of Liebeler's variance <br />request in light of our rejection of the "reasonable manner" standard from Rowell. <br />Reversed and remanded. <br />DIETZEN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. <br />22 <br />