Laserfiche WebLink
What did the 2011 law change? <br />The 2011 law changed the first factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding that had <br />been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. The 2011 law renamed the <br />municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise <br />retained the familiar three -factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential <br />character. The 2011 law also provides that: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in <br />harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance <br />are consistent with the comprehensive plan." <br />Can a city grant a use variance? <br />Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to allow a particular use of their property that would <br />otherwise not be permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed "use <br />variances" as opposed to "area variances" from dimensional standards. Use variances are not <br />generally allowed in Minnesota —state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use <br />that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. For <br />more information, see Minn. Stat. .* 462.357. <br />Is a public hearing required? <br />Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, <br />but many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all <br />variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help <br />determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. <br />What is the role of neighborhood opinion? <br />Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While <br />city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in <br />considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the <br />statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help <br />the city in addressing these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not <br />form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. If neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for <br />the variance decision, the decision could be overturned by a court. <br />What is the role of past practice? <br />While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the <br />practical difficulties factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, <br />cities are not generally bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds that it <br />is issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider the possibility of <br />amending the ordinance to change the standard. <br />When should a variance decision be made? <br />A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota's 60-day rule and must be approved or <br />denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for <br />an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60-day period. <br />Under the 60-day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is <br />deemed an approval. For more information, see Minn. Stat. .* 15.99. <br />3 <br />