It didn’t take long for a state Supreme Court ruling to affect Grand Marais.
The July 21 court decision changes the standards for issuance of variances and makes it more difficult for municipalities to approve the requests. City councilors learned of the court decision at their meeting Aug. 11, as did Dan and Linda Quick, who were hoping to win approval of their variance application allowing them to build an addition to their vacation home at 113 Seventh Avenue West. A variance is needed because the plans call for the two-story addition to be located five feet within the required 10-foot side yard setback.
Because the city planning commission approved the application by a 3-0 vote on Aug. 4, the Quicks were expecting approval of the city council a week later; such matters are normally routine. However, City Administrator Mike Roth and City Attorney Chris Hood explained that the court ruling now compels the city to deny any such applications.
As Hood explained it, the court ruling stems from a case in Minnetonka in which a variance issued to a residential property owner permitting the expansion of a legal, non-conforming garage was challenged by an adjacent property owner. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statutory definition of “undue hardship” in the state statutes and concluded that city authority to issue a variance is limited to those very rare cases where the property cannot be put to a “reasonable use” without the variance. Information presented by Hood states that the court explicitly recognized that it was changing a longstanding standard that cities have relied on in considering variance requests. The Supreme Court stated that “unless and until the Legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that her property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance.”
Councilor and planning commission chairman Tim Kennedy said the news “was a shock to me. Thisis a departure from a longheld standard.” Kennedy went on to observe that because the change is so drastic, the city needs to take its attorney’s advice and look at the City Code and the process by which variances are granted. In fact, he added, many of the recent variances which have been granted in Grand Marais wouldn’t have been doable under the new “reasonable use” guidelines. Roth observed that he didn’t know if any
of the variances granted in recent months and years would have held up under the new state statute.
Addressing the Quicks’ application, councilors said they had no choice but to deny the variance request, as there was already a “reasonable use” of the property. They asked the Quicks if they could revise their plans so the addition was in compliance with the zoning ordinance, thus obviating the need for a variance.
Dan Quick replied that yes, they could change their plans, “but it’s not what we want.” He also told councilors that contractors have already visited his property in preparation for the work, which must now be re-designed or cancelled altogether. “This is a real kick in the head,” he said. “We paid for plans based on what we’ve presented, and it’s not particularly appealing to have to pay for plans again.”
Quick pointed out that the planning and variance process started before the court ruling. “We did everything in good faith and wanted to do it right,” he said. “Now we’re under a new set of rules.”
Council voted to refer the change in legal standard to the planning commission to incorporate the new regulations into the City Code. The planning commission was also asked to look for a way to allow the city greater flexibility in allowing “variance-like” approvals under the zoning ordinances, or even changing the ordinances themselves.
In the meantime, Roth cautioned the Quicks not to expect anything to happen quickly. “It usually takes months to consider an ordinance change or amendment, and we don’t want to rush with this — we need to be deliberate,” he said.
In other business:
. Councilors discussed the 2011 budget during their work session preceding the regular meeting. Roth said there are several options at this point, but until it is known for certain how much the city will — or will not — receive from the state in Local Government Aid next year, many of the details will remain up in the air. Councilors set Aug. 25 as the date department heads will present their proposed budgets.
The maximum levy must be set
on Sept. 8. . Council discussed and approved a lease agreement with Stone Harbor for use of public beach property behind their business on the east bay. The small site will be used to locate a temporary rack for kayak storage on a seasonal basis. Other similar requests will
be handled on a case-by-case
basis. . At the request of Lenny Bloomquist, Street Department head, council approved the purchase of a Ford F-550 truck with dump box, plow and sander at a cost of $62,392. The new vehicle will be used for snow removal in the winter, and to haul material in the summer. It replaces a 1997
Ford F-350; delivery is expected
in four months. . A public hearing was set for Sept. 29 to decide the fate of the city’s burn pile. Mayor Sue Hakes said all options are open, including closing and discontinuing use of the site, or finding an alternate location. It is necessary to do something due to complaints the city has received about poor air quality
(smoke) whenever the debris is
burned. . Council voted to accept a $1,800 grant from the state DNR for the fire department to help with the purchase of five hand-held radios. Total cost of the radios is $3,750.
Leave a Reply