VN-169 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Supreme Court, applying Minnesota Statute Section 462,357 which.permits the granting of variances in instances where strict enforcement of the zoning laws would cause undue hardship because of unique circumstances applying to the individual property under consideration and where the grant of variances is in keeping with the spirit and intent of Minnesota's Zoning Law, considered the plaintiff's contention that the property owner had not met the test of undue hardship and unique circumstances applying to the property, The Court, in denying the argument proposed by the opponents to the request, said: "Plaintiffs contend that the words of Minn, St, 462,357, subd, 6, require that the undue hardship must arise from circumstances unique to the property itself--not the owner, surrounding neighborhood, economic feasibility, or like elements They argue that the "unique circumstances" must be characteristic of the building site or the building thereon and that the property must be different from all others, i,e,, having no like or equal. If this line of reasoning is followed, the rantin of an variance, no matter how minimal, would be practically impossible except where the to o ra hic conditions of a specific parcel o land would render Fhe tract o and in question otherwise va ue- ess, Such an interpretation would ren er impotent the power an authority granted b the legislative act to the city council to rant variances 'where such actions will e in ee in wit the spirit an intenE7-67 ttthe ordinance," That statute specifically pro i its t e granting of a variance permitting any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. By implication, therefore, it does not prohibit granting nonuse variances such as those of area, height, setback, density, and parking requirements, if the granting thereof is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the refusal to grant them would