My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.4. HANDOUTS 08-16-2010
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2010
>
08-16-2010
>
6.4. HANDOUTS 08-16-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2010 4:12:24 PM
Creation date
8/20/2010 4:10:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
8/16/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Adopting the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard would be inconsistent with the <br />distinction we made in Stadsvold between the "practical difficulties" and "hardship" <br />standards. The legislature defined the "hardship" standard in the county statute the same <br />way it defined the "undue hardship" standard in the municipal statute. ~ ~ Because the <br />legislature used the same language in both the county and city variance statutes when <br />defining "hardship," our analysis in Stadsvold requires us to conclude that the "undue <br />hardship" standard in Minn. Stat. § 462.537, subd. 6, is more demanding than the <br />"practical difficulties" standard the court of appeals appears to have relied on in Rowell, <br />446 N.W.2d at 922. <br />Moreover, with respect to the "practical difficulties" standard, we identified in <br />Stadsvold several factors the county should consider in assessing whether that standard <br />was met: <br />(1) how substantial the variation is in relation to the requirement; (2) the <br />effect the variance would have on government services; (3) whether the <br />variance will effect a substantial change in the character of the <br />neighborhood or will be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties; <br />(4) whether the practical difficulty can be alleviated by a feasible method <br />other than a variance; (5) how the practical difficulty occurred, including <br />(Footnote continued from previous page.) <br />prescribed by zoning regulations.' ... An area variance controls `lot restrictions such as <br />area, height, setback, density and parking requirements.' " 754 N.W.2d at 329 (quoting <br />In re Appeal of Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985)). <br />~ ~ " `Hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the <br />property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions <br />allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances <br />unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not <br />alter the essential character of the locality." Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7. <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.