6.7.
Regular Planning Commission
- Meeting Date:
- 05/05/2011
- By:
- Tim Gladhill, Community Development
Title:
Update on Legislation Related to Variance Authority
Background:
Minnesota Statute Section 462.357 is the enabling statute that gives cities police powers to provide zoning ordinances and sets forth basic guidelines and processes that cities must follow in order to provide zoning ordinances. Located within this section of the Statute are guidelines and processes for variances, or deviations from the literal interpretation of the rules and regulations set forth in local ordinances. In 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling that changes how cities are able to interpret and review variances to zoning ordinances. In response, the Minnesota Legislature has proposed amendments to Minnesota Statute Section 462.357 in an attempt to return to previous practices in variance review.
Notification:
No notification required.
Observations:
In 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard a case regarding the interpretation of 'undue hardship' and 'reasonable use' in a case for a request for a Variance in the City of Minnetonka. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the City of Minnetonka, using a previously accepted Minnesota Supreme Court ruling, inappropriately interpreted and applied the reasonable use standard related to variances. Under previous interpretation, an applicant only needed to illustrate that the request for a variance was reasonable.
Although the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling was related to a land use application outside of the City of Ramsey, it changed how the City is legally able to interpret Minnesota Statutes and provide for the Variance process within its own ordinances. As stated in the recent planning commission workshop, the power to provide zoning and subdivision ordinances is not an inherent right, but a police power provided to the City through state enabling statutes.
Legislation has been introduced in both the Minnesota House and Senate for consideration (HF 0052 and SF 0013). The bill attempts to provide language to return to the previous interpretation of reasonable use. The bill also amends Minnesota Statute 394, the enabling statute for counties. The bill attempts to provide a consistent interpretation for both cities and counties, an interpretation that currently differs between the two levels of zoning authority. Please note that only language in Minnesota Statute Section 462 would impact the City, and not Section 394. The bill has passed the House and is now under review by the Senate. A copy of the bill is attached for review.
Regardless of the outcome of the proposed legislation, Staff continues to recommend reviewing our current ordinances and to look for opportunities to build flexibility into the ordinances themselves versus relying on variances as a flexibility tool. Staff finds variances a necessary tool to capture those unique circumstances that may not have been thought of at the time of drafting of an ordinances, but also finds opportunities to provide such flexibility while limiting discretionary or subjective review.
Funding Source:
Review, tracking, and monitoring of the proposed legislation are being handled as part of regular staff duties.
Staff Recommendation:
No recommendation needed at this time.
Committee Action:
No action needed at this time.
Attachments
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Brian Hagen | Tim Gladhill | 04/21/2011 02:33 PM |
- Form Started By:
- Tim Gladhill
- Started On:
- 04/15/2011 08:51 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 04/26/2011