Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Liebeler owns property in Minnetonka. P is Liebeler's neighbor to the west. The property contains a detached flat-roofed garage that a previous owner constructed sometime in the 1940s. D has an ordinance requiring that the detached garage be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the property's boundary line. Liebeler's garage was constructed before this ordinance went into effect, and it does not satisfy the setback requirement. The garage is nonconforming because it is set back only 17 feet from the front yard lot line. Because the garage was constructed before the ordinance became effective, however, the garage is a permissible nonconformity. Liebeler applied for a variance to expand the detached garage by adding a pitched roof and a second-story room above the garage that could be used as a yoga studio and craft room. Adding a second story to the garage would result in a vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure, Liebeler was required to apply for a variance from D. Liebeler, and P had an opportunity to present their arguments at a public hearing. P objected to Liebeler's proposed project, explaining that the added height of the garage would obstruct his view to the east. The Planning Commission approved Liebeler's request for the variance: (1) the denial of a variance would cause 'undue hardship' because of the 'topography of the site, width of the lot, location of the driveway, and existing vegetation'; (2) the preexisting nonconforming setback was a 'unique circumstance'; (3) Liebeler's proposal would comply with the 'intent of the ordinance' because it satisfied the 'zoning ordinance requirements for a detached garage for maximum height and size' and did not alter the footprint of the garage; and (4) the proposal would not alter the 'neighborhood character' because it would 'visually enhance the exterior of the garage' and because there was another detached garage on a nearby property that was also set back only 17 feet from the road. P appealed to the City Council. It held a public hearing on the variance, and both sides presented their arguments. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision and findings. The council listed four requirements and found that the variance satisfied those requirements as follows: (1) Undue Hardship: there is an undue hardship due to the topography of the site, width of the lot, location of the driveway and existing vegetation. (2) Unique Circumstance: The existing, non-conforming setback is a circumstance that is not common to every similarly zoned property. (3) Intent of the Ordinance: The improvements would not increase the footprint of the garage, and would comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for a detached garage for maximum height and size. (4) Neighborhood Character: The garage improvements would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The improvements would visually enhance the exterior of the garage. There is also a detached garage on the property to the east that is set back 17 feet from [the street]. P then sued in district court. The court affirmed D's decision to grant the variance to Liebeler, concluding that D's decision was not 'arbitrary and capricious.' P appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision in all respects. P appealed. P argues that because the plain language of the law prohibits the expansion of any nonconformity, D's decision allowing Liebeler to expand her nonconforming garage must be reversed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co