My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.5. PCSR 07-12-2011
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2011-2020
>
2011
>
07-12-2011
>
5.5. PCSR 07-12-2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2011 2:46:10 PM
Creation date
7/8/2011 8:46:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCSR
date
7/12/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
LEAGUE of <br />MINNES <br />ITIES <br />CONNECTING & INNOVATING <br />SINCE 1913 <br />2411. Variance Legislation <br />The changes, which are now in effect, may require some cities to change ordinances or <br />statutory cross-references. <br />After a long and contentious session working to restore city variance authority, the final version of <br />HF 52 supported by the League and allies was passed unanimously by the Legislature. <br />On May 5, Gov. Dayton signed 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amending Minnesota <br />Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to <br />Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). The law also <br />provides consistent statutory language between Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462 and the county <br />variance authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 394.27, subdivision 7. <br />In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the statutory definition of <br />"undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test is not <br />whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence <br />of the variance. The new law changes that factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding <br />that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. <br />The new law was effective on May 6, the day following <br />the governor's approval. Presumably it applies to <br />pending applications, as the general rule is that cities are <br />to apply the law at the time of the decision, rather than at <br />the time of application. <br />Learn More <br />Read more about variances in: <br />The new law renames the municipal variance standard <br />from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test <br />of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new <br />to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: "Variances shall only be <br />permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and <br />when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." <br />In addition, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those <br />conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the <br />varlance. <br />Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. <br />LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 PAX: (651) 281-1298 <br />INSURANCE TRUST ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (HOO) 92$-1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG <br />Land Use Variances: Freauently <br />Asked Questions <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.