PCAgenda_05Feb22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Randy Nelson, et al., Respondents, vs. Wilson Townshop Board of Adjustments, et al... (2002) page 7 expansion" and that decisions about future urban growth "will have an impact on the • amount of prime agricultural land taken out of production [and] the natural resources in the township." The board found that the land at issue is not prime agricultural land. The record supports this finding and, further, nothing in the record suggests that the land is suited for timber-harvesting purposes. 7. Economic Conditions Not Sole Consideration Section 506.1 provides that economic conditions or circumstances alone may not be considered when deciding whether to grant a variance request. The board stated that "economic conditions were not considered" when it decided to grant Morgan and Holmay's variance request. Respondents argue that the only factor that the board considered was economic conditions, but they cite nothing in the record to support their contention. 8. Prohibited Uses or Lower Standards Finally, section 506.1 requires that no variance allow flood-protection standards • lower than those required by state law. The board found that the Wilson Township standards are equal to or greater than applicable county or state standards, and none of the parties disputes the board's finding on this criterion. The board's decision to grant the variance is reasonable because the board considered the criteria in the Wilson Township Zoning, Planning, and Building Ordinance. Further, the reasons given for the decision are legally sufficient and have a factual basis. The board did not, therefore, act arbitrarily or capriciously by granting a zoning variance to Morgan and Holmay to allow construction of three non-farm dwellings on the 21-acre parcel. Reversed.