Laserfiche WebLink
- i <br /> City's decision to grant the variance to Liebeler, concluding that the City's decision was <br /> not"arbitrary and capricious." <br /> Krummenacher appealed to the court of appeals: On appeal, he raised three issues. <br /> First, he argued that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a) (2008), prohibits the City from <br /> granting a variance to allow the expansion of a nonconfornung use. Ki�ummenache�•, 768 � <br /> N.aV.2d at 380-81. Second, he argued that the City's approval of the variance request <br /> was "arbitraiy and capricious" because Liebeler had failed to meet the "undue hardship" <br /> standard of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. See Krummenache�•, 768 N.W.2d at 382-84. <br /> Last, he argued that the district court erred in refusing to compel additional discovery by <br /> the Ciiy. See id. at 384. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision in all <br /> respects. <br /> We granted Krummenacher's petition for review. On appeal to our court, <br /> Krummenacher advances the same three arguments he made to the court of appeals.2 <br /> I. <br /> We turn first to Krummenacher's argument that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le, <br /> prohibits a municipality from granting a variance that allows for the expansion of a <br /> nonconforming structure. Section 462.357, subdivision le,provides in relevant part: <br /> (a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land <br /> or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control <br /> under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, <br /> 2 On January 26, 2010, Liebeler filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that we should <br /> dismiss the case on the grounds that construction of the expanded garage has been <br /> completed, rendering Krummenacher's claims moot. The motion to dismiss is denied. <br /> 6 <br />