Laserfiche WebLink
undue hardship. The statute provides <br />property owners may request variances where <br />rt enforcement of the provisions would cause <br />hardship "because of circumstances unique <br />ze individual property under consideration." <br />trial court held that the evidence justified <br />"-ermination that if the variances were not <br />:ed, defendant would suffer undue hardship <br />ise of unique circumstances not reflective <br />)nditions general to the neighborhood. The <br />iborhood is composed of older homes, generally <br />rained in adequate to excellent repair and <br />-ior to the condition of the structures on <br />idant's tract. The setback requirement was <br />ze to the tract, as compared to the usual <br />ick requirements in tracts in "C" Residence <br />-icts." [It must be noted that although this <br />Lck requirement may have been "unique to a "C" <br />fence District," at the time the request for <br />7ari nnr,z TJ7C mar10 thlS. r,Y nr??rt-t? r.,no s. ,-A 111111. <br />Ae5lueLLUU Li.szricz. rurznermore, me seroacK <br />requirement for a Multiple Unit Residential <br />District, "C", are either a minimum of 25 feet <br />or a maximum of 50 feet depending upon the number <br />of stories.]" 210,NW at 419, 420 and 421. <br />In summary, the Minnesota Supreme Court in Merriam <br />Park said that "unique" circumstances do not require that the <br />property be different from all other properties, i.e., having <br />no like or equal. The Court said that if "this line of reasoning <br />is followed, the granting of any variance, no matter how minimal, <br />will be practically impossible, except where the topographic <br />conditions of a specified parcel would render the tract of land <br />in question otherwise of value. Furthermore, the Court noted <br />that undue hardship could be based upon the economic feasibility <br />of the proposed construction. <br />8