09-17-1984 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PETEK .S i: K . r t \V 5. s CH11 R r s PnorrSSiONAL ASSOCIATION Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Page 3 July 26, 1984 Minn. Stat. 462.357, Subd. 6 establishes the statutory guidelines regarding variance requests. This statute allows municipalities to hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration"... The term "undue hardship" is— defined in the statute to include the situation where, "the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property il2±_^T*^^ted by the landowner^ and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." (Emphasis added.) With the historical perspective in mind, and with the statutory requirements of variance procedure being understood, T will now respond to the seven (7) reasons you have cited in support of your recommendation for denial: 1.To Approve Lot Area and Lot Width Variances Concurrent with Subdivision Application Would Establish a Negative Precedent. The This reason for denial is not valid under Minn. Stat. 462.357. As indicated above, when ^ municipality hears a request for a variance, it is confined to the issue of whether there is "undue hardship" to the "circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration." issue of whether the grant of the variance would or would not establish a negative precedent is irrelevant and is not subject to consideration under the enabling legislation giving rise to variance hearings. The only discussion in tuch a hearing should focus on the undue hardship of the j. * '^tty involved, and should not address other speculative is*-aes. ^ ihe governing body, by law, must confine its inquiry to the individual property under consideration. Note that the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that mere "aesthetic _ _ _ _ _concerns do not rise up to the level of serious health. safety, or public welfare considerations which justify the denial of a variance request. huger v. City of Burnsville. 295 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1980). “- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.The Applicant has Received Tax Benefits from the Legal Combination of Lots 3 and 4 Over the Years Since the 1940’s. This reason for denial is difficult to respond to because no affirmative action or< the part of Mr. and Mrs. Ericson is involved. Again, when we look to the enabling legislation (Minn. Stat. 462.357), we are confined to an inquiry as to the plight of the larulowner due to "circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." f1n *j