10-29-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Jeanne Mahusth October 17, 1984 Page 9 there existed no hardship justifying the variance. The Court took that position for the simple reason that the applicant had an alternative, na.iely sellinq the property and recouping his investment. Mi. Fisk is in precisely the same position and has availabl;, to him the alterna- tive of sell:.ng the property to an adjacent owner. He should not be allowed to use his refusal to do so -�s a reason for forcing the Council to qrant a variance. In addition, courts rec,,gnize that in the free market of informed buyers and sellers, property is sold at a price commensurate with its value. Less desirable parcels, whether they be that way because of size, location, topo- graphy, or some other feature, command a lesser price than do prime sites. Persons purchasing those less desirable sites shculd not be able to use those natural disadvantages unfairly and cities must be careful about grantinq variances .in such instance lest they confer double benefit. It was in recognizing this fact that the Court in Cowen said cf the substandard lot purchased at a tax sale that "it is reasonable to assume that the price obtained by the County of Passau at the sale reflected the value of the property as restricted by the ordinance. He ce, the Granting of the variance would, like as not, result in a windfall to petitioner well above the nominal price paid at the ta)- sale." Cower. at 309. In conclusion, it appeLrs that there are numerou reasons for rejecting this variance request. Some of these involve public policy matters which the City Council is best equipped to evaluate. Others involve questions of law. While there is no Minnesota c.AsP which has dealt with precisely the issue at hand, numerous courts in other states hav^ confronted these issues. Whether a Minnesota court faced with these facts would decide them in a similar fa5-.hion is speculative. However, it is significant to note that the courts in Minnesota have consistently Kequired strict compliance with the standard of state - tute and municipal urdir.ir.ces in the granting of vari., and have reco�r.ized the broad discretion which a Council has in interpreting its mown ordi- nances. In vanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503 (1983), the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: "A municipal decision making body has a broad discretionary power to deny an app'.ication for variances. 'rhe