Agenda - Council Work Session - 09/07/2010

Home

State Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets Variance Authority The court ruling halls chias to a much stricter standard, which considerably limits variance opportunities. (PUbllshetllu/21, 2010) The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a tle<ISion thaC changetl the longstanding interpretation of the statutory stantlartl far granting zoning variances. In the case of Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, the Supreme Court narrowly Interpreted the defnlGOn of "undue hartlship" an0 held that Ne °reasonable use" prong of the "undue hartlship° test is riot whether the proposetl use is reasonable, but rather whether there Is reasonable use In the absence Of the valance. This Is a much stricter standard, which consitlerably limits variance opportunities. The tledston The City pf Minnetonka issued a valance to a resltlential property owner permitting the expansion of a legal, non-conforming garage. The city, relying on a 1989 Court of Appeals tledsion, concludetl [hat the grant of the valance was reasonable. The qty's tlecislon was challengetl by an atljacent property owner. Both the District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreetl that the city's decision was appropriate. On June 24 the Minnesota Supreme Court reverse0 the Court of Appeals and fountl the city's tlecislon impermissible. The Supreme Court examinetl the statutory degnition of "undue hardship" in Minnesota Statutes, section 463.351, and concluded that city authority to Issue a valance Is Ilml[etl to those very rare cases where the property cannot be put [a "a reasonable use" without the valance. This establishes a high threshold for both the city and the property owner when consitleing valance requests. The Supreme Court revlewetl the parallel county authority [hat allows for a valance In 5ituaGOns of "practical dlfFlCUlUes" or "hardship." The Supreme Court found that the city authority was more Iimitetl because IC tlitl not contain the "pracUCal diffculUes" provision. The court expllclCly recognized that it was changing a longstanding stantlartl that clues have relied on in considering variance requests. [n panicular, the court specifically rejected a 1989 Court of Appeals Interpretation of Me phrase °undue hardship," which allowed for the grant of a valance In dreamsW rites where the "property owner would Ilke [o use the property in a reasonable manner [hat is prohibited by the ordinance." The Supreme Court statetl that "unless and until the Legislature takes action to provide a more Flexible valance standard for municipalities, we are const2ined by the language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grsn[ a valance unless the applicant can show [hat her property cannot be put to a reasonable use wiMou[ the variance." Impact of the decision Because of the far-reaching nature of Che decision, there are probably a[ leas[ four responses that cities should think about-a[ leas[ unCll a IeglslaUVe correction can be aMieved: • The city shoultl re-evaluate the criteria that it has hirtolcally usetl in tledtling whether or not to grant a valance. The Supreme Court's tlecislon limits a city's tllscretlon. The ruling limits the authority to circumstances where [he properly owner can tlemonstrate that Chere Is no[ a reasonable use of the property absent the valance grant. • In circumstances where the city coundl believes [he grant of a valance is approplate, the city should take great care fo make detailed Flnding describing why Ne grant of the variance is necessary co provitle the property owner calm a reasonable use of his or her property. What constitutes a reasonable use of property Is no[ tlegned and may differ depentling on the unique circumstances of the property and attrbutes of various communines. • If a city routinely grants variances, this may be an intlicator that it may wan[ to re-examine Its zoning code [o ensure that stantlards, setbacks, uses, and other requirements are consistent with the dry wuncil's current vision for the community. [n short, [he court's declslon should acC as an enCPUrdgemepC to lilies to review their land use prdC[I<es. • CIUes may want to build greater Flexibility Into their existing mntliclonal use permit, plannetl unit tlevelopment, and setback regulations co expllclUy afford greater latitutle [o allow "variance-like" approvals under the zoning cotle. For Instance, a city might establish alternative setback requirements to allow for construction that is consistent with neighborhood attributes. Legislative action The restlNVe court declslon has causetl a number of League members to call for a legislative response. The declslon, its impact, and a possible legislative response will be discussed in the League's Improving Service Delivery Policy Committee this summer. It Is andcipatetl that the League will support a legislative change to provide cities with greater Flexibility-perhaps something similar to the county authority.