Court Opinion

ID: 9689167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:22:40.561757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:45.658726
License: Public Domain

KALITOWSKI, Judge
(concurring specialty)-
I concur in the result but write specially because I find it unnecessary and inappropriate to overrule Hedlund v. City of Maplewood, 366 N.W.2d 624 (Minn.App.1985). In Hedlund, the city gave three reasons for denying the variance and this court determined each of the reasons was supported by the facts. Id. at 627. Thus, Hedlund is distinguishable because here the only reason given by the city for denying the variance was the fact that appellant’s knowledge of the applicable zoning ordinance prior to the purchase of the property made any undue hardship self-created.