Laserfiche WebLink
_ i. <br /> - I <br /> SYLLA BUS � <br /> l. Although Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 e(a) (2008), restricts the ability <br /> of property owners to expand their nonconforming uses, subdivision le(b) authorizes <br /> a municipality to allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance. Because the legislature <br /> gave the municipality discretion to authorize the expansion of a nonconforming use, the <br /> decision to allow respondent to seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a <br /> nonconformity was consistent with Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le. <br /> 2. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, to establish the "undue hardship" <br /> required for a variance, a variance applicant must establish that"the property in question <br /> cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance. <br /> 3. Because the municipality applied the wrong standard, a remand for <br /> reconsideration of respondent's variance application under the correct standard is <br /> appropriate. <br /> Reversed and remanded. <br /> OPINION <br /> GILDEA, Justice. <br /> This case involves the decision of respondent City of Minnetonka to grant a <br /> variance to respondent JoAnne Liebeler so that she could expand her nonconforming <br /> garage. Appellant Seat Krummenacher is Liebeler's neighbor and he challenges the <br /> City's decision. The district court upheld the City's variance, and the court of appeals <br /> affirmed. See Krummenaclzer v. City of Minnetonka, 768 N.W.2d 377, 384 (Minn. App. <br /> 2009). Because we conclude that the City applied the wrong standard to Liebeler's <br /> 2 <br />