In re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1ConcurrenceGildea, Justice
I agree with the majority that Haslund should be permitted to develop his property in accordance with the variance he received from the City of St. Mary’s Point (City), but I reach this result for a different reason. This case is on appeal because the Department of ’Natural Resources (DNR) refused to “certify” the variance the City granted. The DNR asserts the authority to certify local government variance decisions in its administrative rule. See Minn. R. 6105.0540 (2009) (requiring that local governments apply to the DNR for certification of variance decisions). I would hold that the DNR…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. HannukselaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Putz v. PutzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- In Re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund Ex Rel. City of St. Mary's PointCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
- In re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to HubbardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010