Laserfiche WebLink
private property with the right of municipalities to restrict properry use. In <br /> this balancing process, constitutional property rights must be respected and <br /> protected from unreasonable zoning restrictions. <br /> Id. at 716-17. In light of these considerations, the New Hampshire Supreme Court said <br /> that "unnecessary hardship" would, in the future, be established when a landowner <br /> showed that (1) a zoning restriction as applied interferes with a reasonable use of the <br /> property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment; (2)no fair and <br /> substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and <br /> the specific restriction on the property; and(3)the variance would not injure the public or <br /> private rights of others. Id. at 717.14 <br /> Had the Minnesota Legislature not defined "undue hardship" in Minn. Stat. <br /> § 462.357, subd. 6, we might consider the approach articulated in Simplex.15 A flexible <br /> variance standard allows municipalities to make modest adjustments to the detailed <br /> application of a regulatory scheme when a zoning ordinance imposes significant burdens <br /> on an individual, and relief can be fashioned without harm to the neighbors, the <br /> community, or the overall purposes of the ordinance. See David W. Owens, The Zoning <br /> Yariance: Reappraisal and Recommendations fo�� Reform of a Much-Maligned Tool, 29 <br /> Colum. J. Envtl. L. 279, 317 (2004) ("If the variance power is to be used both as a <br /> Ia These standards were subsequently codified. See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:33 <br /> (Supp. 2009). <br /> ls The factors set forth in Simplex are not dissimilar to the factors we embraced in <br /> ' Stadsvold in construing "practical difficulties." See 754 N.W.2d at 331 (discussing <br /> factors for consideration under the "practical difficulties" standard). <br /> 19 <br />