## Facts

- A homeowner’s detached garage was a lawful nonconforming structure because it predated current zoning controls, but it sat far inside a required front-yard setback.
- The homeowner sought to repair the garage and add a second story for accessory uses, increasing the structure’s nonconformity in height while keeping the same footprint.
- Because the project increased the degree of nonconformity, the homeowner applied to the city for a setback variance.
- An adjoining landowner opposed the variance, asserting that the taller structure would block views and negatively affect his property.
- The city planning commission recommended approval, and the city council granted the variance.
- In granting the variance, the city found hardship based on site conditions (including lot topography, driveway location, and mature trees), found the situation unique, and concluded the project would not change the neighborhood’s character.
- The city applied a “reasonable manner” understanding of undue hardship derived from prior appellate precedent rather than the statutory definition.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality granting a zoning variance must apply the statutory definition of “undue hardship” in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 (2008).
2. Whether the “reasonable manner” test used by municipalities and lower courts is consistent with the statute’s requirement that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use under the existing zoning controls.
3. Whether a variance decision based on an erroneous hardship standard is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded to the city for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.
- The court held the statute’s definition of “undue hardship” controlled and required proof that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the official controls.
- The court rejected the “reasonable manner” test as inconsistent with the statute because it lowers the hardship threshold.
- The court concluded the city’s decision rested on the wrong legal test because its findings relied on “reasonable manner” reasoning rather than the statutory “cannot be put to a reasonable use” determination.

## Legal Principles

- When the Legislature defines a term in a zoning-variance statute, municipalities and courts must apply that definition.
- Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 (2008), “undue hardship” exists only if the property cannot be put to a reasonable use under the zoning controls.
- A variance standard asking whether the proposed project is a reasonable way to use the property is not equivalent to, and cannot replace, a requirement that the property lacks any reasonable use without the variance.
- A variance granted under an incorrect legal standard is arbitrary and capricious and must be reconsidered under the proper statutory test.

## Conclusion

The court required municipalities to apply the statutory “undue hardship” definition for variances and rejected a more permissive judicially created test, remanding for a new decision under the statute’s “cannot be put to a reasonable use” requirement.


Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2010)