Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka
783 N.W.2d 721 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To grant a zoning variance, a municipality must apply the strict statutory definition of "undue hardship," which requires the applicant to show that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. A more lenient standard, such as whether the owner wishes to use the property in a "reasonable manner" prohibited by an ordinance, is an incorrect application of the law.
Facts:
- JoAnne Liebeler owned a 2.4-acre property in the City of Minnetonka, which included a detached garage built in the 1940s.
- A city ordinance, enacted after the garage was built, required a 50-foot setback from the property line.
- Liebeler's garage was nonconforming as it was set back only 17 feet, but its existence was permitted as a pre-existing nonconformity.
- Liebeler applied for a variance to expand the garage vertically by adding a pitched roof and a second-story room for use as a yoga studio and craft room.
- Liebeler's neighbor, Beat Krummenacher, objected to the proposed expansion, arguing that the increased height of the structure would obstruct his view.
Procedural Posture:
- JoAnne Liebeler applied to the City of Minnetonka's Planning Commission for a variance.
- The Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved Liebeler's variance request.
- Beat Krummenacher appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the Minnetonka City Council.
- The City Council held a hearing and upheld the Planning Commission’s decision to grant the variance.
- Krummenacher filed suit in district court (trial court) to challenge the City's decision.
- The district court affirmed the City's decision, finding it was not arbitrary and capricious.
- Krummenacher, as appellant, appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision in all respects.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted Krummenacher’s petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipality apply the correct legal standard for granting a zoning variance by determining that a property owner's proposed use is 'reasonable,' rather than applying the stricter statutory 'undue hardship' standard which requires a showing that the property 'cannot be put to a reasonable use' without the variance?
Opinions:
Majority - Gildea, Justice
No. A municipality misapplies the law when it grants a variance based on a lenient 'reasonable manner' standard instead of the strict statutory 'undue hardship' standard, which requires proof that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. The plain language of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, is clear and unambiguous. It defines 'undue hardship' with a specific three-factor test, the first of which is that 'the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use' without the variance. The 'reasonable manner' standard, articulated by the court of appeals in Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of Moorhead, is irreconcilable with this plain statutory language. That standard is also inconsistent with this court's precedent in In re Stadsvold, which distinguished between the less rigorous 'practical difficulties' standard for county area variances and the more demanding 'hardship' standard for municipal variances. While the Rowell standard has been used for years, the court cannot ignore the clear text enacted by the legislature. Because the City of Minnetonka applied the incorrect, more lenient legal standard, its decision to grant the variance was improper.
Analysis:
This decision significantly tightens the standard for granting municipal zoning variances in Minnesota by explicitly rejecting the long-standing, flexible 'reasonable manner' test from the appellate court case Rowell. It forces municipalities to adhere strictly to the plain-language definition of 'undue hardship' in the state statute, making it much more difficult for property owners to obtain variances. The ruling solidifies that the 'undue hardship' standard is a high bar, requiring proof that a property is essentially unusable as zoned, not merely that a proposed use is reasonable. This creates a clear, albeit more rigid, framework for municipal zoning boards and will likely result in fewer variances being granted, especially for area variances that do not involve a total deprivation of use.
Unlock the full brief for Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka