This content conveys general information. Do not use it as a substitute for legal advice. Any attorney general opinions cited are available from the League’s Research staff.
What is a variance?
A variance is a way that cities may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply.
Sometimes a landowner seeks a variance to allow a use of their property that is not permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed “use variances” as opposed to “area variances” from dimensional standards. Use variances are not generally allowed in Minnesota. State law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6).
Granting a variance
Minnesota law provides for a body called the board of adjustment and appeals to hear requests for variances (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). In many smaller communities, the planning commission or even the city council may serve that function. A variance decision is generally appealable to the city council.
A city may grant a variance if enforcement of a zoning ordinance provision, as applied to a particular piece of property, would cause the landowner “practical difficulties.” For the variance to be granted, the applicant must satisfy the statutory three-factor test for practical difficulties (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, the city should not grant the variance. Also, variances are only permitted when:
- They are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and
- The terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
When considering a variance application, a city exercises “quasi-judicial” authority. This means the city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal standard. The city’s role is limited to applying the legal standard of practical difficulties to the facts presented by the application. If the applicant meets the standard, then the city may grant the variance.
In contrast, when the city writes the rules in the zoning ordinance, the city is exercising “legislative” authority and has much broader discretion.
“Practical difficulties” is a legal standard that cities must apply when considering applications for variances. It is a three-factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied.
The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance.
It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable.
The second factor is that the landowner’s problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner.
The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner.
When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees.
The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Under this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area.
For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area.
The 2011 law restored municipal variance authority in response to a Minnesota Supreme Court case (Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010)). The law now does both of the following:
- Provides consistent statutory language between city land use planning statutes (Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6) and county variance authority (Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7).
- Clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to, and bear a rough proportionality to, the impact created by the variance.
The 2011 law renamed the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retained the familiar three-factor test of
- essential character
The League has developed models that reflect current variance law. Your city attorney should review these models with you prior to council action to tailor them for your city’s needs.
- View the League model ordinance on issuance of a zoning variance (doc)
- View the League model variance application form (doc)
- View the League model resolution adopting findings of fact (doc)
Harmony with other land use controls
State law says, “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan” (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). This is in addition to the three-factor practical difficulties test. So, a city evaluating a variance application should make findings on whether:
- The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance.
- The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
- The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner.
- There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner.
- The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Sometimes landowners insist they deserve a variance because they have already incurred substantial cost. They may also argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). Rather, practical difficulties exist only when the three statutory factors are met.
Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request.
While city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, their task is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors.
Residents can often provide important facts to help the city address these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request are not a legitimate basis for a variance decision. If neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for the variance decision, it could be overturned by a court if challenged.
A city may impose conditions when it grants a variance. Conditions must be directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed a height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to lessening the effect of excess height.
Variance procedural issues
Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied. Many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors.
While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the practical difficulties factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, cities are not bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds it is issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider amending the ordinance to change the standard.
A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota’s 60-day rule. It must be approved or denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60-day period. Under the 60-day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is considered an approval (Minn. Stat. § 15.99).
Whatever its decision, a city should create a record that supports it.
If denying the variance, the 60-day rule requires the reasons for the denial be put in writing within the statutory time period (Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2). Even if the variance is approved, a written statement explaining the decision is advisable.
The written statement should address each of the three practical difficulties factors and list the relevant facts and conclusions for each factor.
Variances once granted
A variance is a property right that “runs with the land.” That is, it attaches to and benefits the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. A variance is typically filed with the county recorder. Even if the property is sold to another person, the variance applies.