Legislation introduced in Minnesota to allow variances when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance.

A bill has been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature that will allow variances when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0013.0.html&session=ls87

The proposed legislation provides that "practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (emphasis added).

Although the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the current County zoning statute does allow a County to grant a variance based on the “reasonable manner” standard, In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. 2008), the Supreme Court held in 2010 that the current City zoning statute, based on its use of different statutory language, only allows a variance if the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use without a variance.See Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2010). The Supreme Court recognized that Minnesota cities have been granting variances under the more flexible “reasonable manner” standard for many years and that its decision resulted in a restriction on a city’s authority to grant variances (because, in most situations, the subject property is already being used or could be used for something). The Supreme Court stated it was constrained by the statutory language “unless and until the legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities.”

The proposed legislation does provide for the more flexible variance standard for cities for what are called “area variances” — zoning restrictions such as lot, building and yard size, maximum heights of structures, lot line setbacks, density and parking requirements. However, it does not change the existing Minnesota law that prohibits the zoning authority from granting a variance for a use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located.

Anthony Dorland
(612) 877-5258
DorlandA@moss-barnett.com