07-13-2010 Council Work Session Packet

Home Browse Search

' constitutional safeguaxd and as a tool for flexibility, zoning enabling acts and local ordinances should be amended to delineate these two purposes and set different standards for each. The failure to make such a distinction underlies much of the past controversy regarding variances. Courts and commentators have traditionally viewed the variances as the former—a very limited tool for avoidance of constitutional infirmiiy in extraordinary cases. Most variance petitions, and consequently most board of adjustment decision- making, have viewed the variances as the latter—a tool to provide flexible implementation rather than constitutional infirmity."). We recognize that the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard represents a longstanding interpretation of the undue hardship standard in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, and that Minnesota municipalities ha�e been granting variances under the "reasonable manner" standard for many years. We also recognize that our decision will result in a rest�iction on a municipality's authority to grant variances as compared with the "reasonable manner" standard. But whatever value we may find in a more flexible standard, particularly with regard to area variances, we cannot ignore the plain language of the statute. See State v. Peck, 773 N.W.2d 768, 773 (Minn. 2009) ("We have no opportunity to ignore part of the legislature's defmition."). We axe unable to interpret the statutory language to mean anything other than what the text clearly says that to obtain a municipal variance, an applicant must establish that "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Therefore, unless and until the legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the 20 I