Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />Issuance of Variances, LMC <br />Model Ordinance. <br />Variance Application, LMC <br />Model Form. <br />Adopting Findings of Fact, <br />LMC Model Resolution. <br />Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. <br />6. <br />See LMC information memo, <br />Taking the Mystery out of <br />Findings of Fact. <br />Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. <br />6. <br />C. City ordinances <br />Some cities may have ordinance provisions that codified the old statutory <br />language, or that have their own set of standards. For those cities, the <br />question may be whether you have to first amend your zoning code before <br />processing variances under the new standard. A credible argument can be <br />made that the statutory language pre-empts inconsistent local ordinance <br />provisions. Under a pre-emption theory, cities could apply the new law <br />immediately without necessarily amending their ordinance first. In any <br />regard, it would be best practice for cities to revisit their ordinance <br />provisions and consider adopting language that mirrors the new statute. <br />The models linked at the left reflect the 2011 variance legislation. While <br />they may contain provisions that could serve as models in drafting your own <br />documents, your city attorney would need to review prior to council action <br />to tailor to your city's needs. Your city may have different ordinance <br />requirements that need to be accommodated. <br />IV. Other considerations <br />A. Harmony with other land use controls <br />The 2011 law also provides that: "Variances shall only be permitted when <br />they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance <br />and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan." This is in addition to the three -factor practical difficulties test. So a <br />city evaluating a variance application should make findings as to: <br />• Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? <br />• Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? <br />• Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? <br />• Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the <br />landowner? <br />• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? <br />B. Economic factors <br />Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have <br />already incurred substantial costs or argue they will not receive expected <br />revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic <br />considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties. Rather, practical <br />difficulties exist only when the three statutory factors are met. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/11/2019 <br />Land Use Variances Page 4 <br />