Laserfiche WebLink
_ _ _ <br /> I <br /> whether the landowner created the need for the variance; and (6) whether, <br /> in light of all of the above factors, allowing the variance will serve the <br /> interests of justice. <br /> 754 N.W.2d at 331 (footnote omitted). Rowell's interpretation of the "undue hardship" <br /> standard, requiring only that the proposed use be "reasonable," would render the "undue <br /> hardship" standard in section 462357 less stringent than the "practical difficulties" <br /> standard and much less stringent than the "particular hardship" standard in the county <br /> variance statute, which the "undue hardship" standard appears to parallel. See Stadsvold, ' <br /> 754 N.W.2d at 331. In short, our analysis in Stadsvold simply does not leave room for <br /> the Rowell"reasonable manner" standard.lZ <br /> 'Z The City argues that, even if Rowell was based on an erroneous reading of the text <br /> of section 462.357, subdivision 6, the standard in Rowell has been used by municipalities <br /> for many years in determining whether to grant a variance. See, e.g.,Mohler v. City ofSt. <br /> Louis Park, 643 N.W.2d 623, 631 (Minn. App. 2002); Nolan v. City of Eden P�•air�ie, 610 <br /> N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn. App. 2000); Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488, 492 <br /> (Minn. App. 1995). The City suggests that, because the legislature has amended section <br /> 462.357 many times since RoweZl and has not disturbed the court of appeals' <br /> interpretation of the "undue hardship" standard, we should treat the legislature as having <br /> ratified the Rowell standard. But the legislature has provided that "[w]hen a court of Iast <br /> resort has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same <br /> subject matter intends the same const�-uction to be placed upon such language." Minn. <br /> Stat. § 645.17(4) (2008). The court of appeals is not "a court of last resort." See <br /> Anderson-.Iohanning�neie�� v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Ct�-., Inc., 673 N.W.2d 270, 276 <br /> (Minn. 2002) (stating that the court of appeals is not the court of last resort with respect <br /> to statutory construction). Nor does the denial of a petition for review give a court of <br /> appeals decision more precedential value than a court of appeals decision from which no <br /> review was sought. Murphy v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 388 N.W.2d 732, 739 (Minn. <br /> 1986). We therefore reject the City's a.rgument that the legislature has ratified the Rowell <br /> standard. <br /> 17 <br />