Laserfiche WebLink
__ ._ _ <br /> Similarly, in Stadsvold, we remanded a variance application to the county board <br /> because the board applied the wrong standard: <br /> The Boa�•d, using an "adequate hardship" standard, did not consider <br /> practical difficulties. The Stadsvolds argue the Board's decision was <br /> therefore arbitrary and capricious. The Board did riot have the benefit of our <br /> holding in this case regarding "practical di�culties." We cannot tell <br /> whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, <br /> remand is required to allow the Board to consider the Sta.dsvolds' variance <br /> application in light of our holding that applications for area variances are to � <br /> be considered using the "practical difficulties" standard in Minn. Stat. <br /> § 394.27, subd. 7. ' <br /> Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 332. Our precedent therefore supports the conclusion that a <br /> property owner is entitled to have his or her variance application heard under the correct <br /> legal standard, which supports a remand in this case. A remand is particularly <br /> appropriate in this case because a proper,ty owner seeking to utilize her property should <br /> not be penalized due to the City's application of the wrong legal standard. We reverse <br /> and remand the matter to the City for renewed consideration of Liebeler's variance <br /> request in light of our rejection of the "reasonable manner" standard from Rowell. <br /> Reversed and remanded. <br /> DIETZEN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. <br /> 22 <br />