Laserfiche WebLink
b. Stadsvold's Additional Afler-the-Fact Standards. <br />i. Whether the construction was complete. <br />ii. Whether there are similar structures in the area. <br />iii The benefit to the municipality of enforcement, compared to the burden <br />on the applicant if compliance was required. <br />iv. Whether the violation was intentional or unintentional <br />7. The Imposition of Conditions <br />a. There must be a nexus between the condition imposed and the variance request <br />itself. The prior version of the statute specifically said that conditions that insure <br />compliance with the variance, and/or protect adjacent properties and the public <br />interest were proper. A recent U.S. Supreme Court case may have implications <br />in this area. Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management District, 133 S.Ct. <br />2586 (2013) discusses the concepts of nexus and rough proportionality in the <br />context of attaching conditions to an approval. <br />b. The new 2011 legislation deleted the provision referencing conditions to insure <br />compliance, and now says that a condition must be directly related to and must <br />bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. <br />8. Processing of Variances. <br />a. A certified copy of the variance must be recorded with the county recorder or <br />registrar of titles. <br />b. The order must contain a legal description of the property involved. <br />c. The city council should designate by ordinance an employee to be responsible for <br />filing variances. <br />d. There exists a question as to the foim of notice required to be given in order to <br />start the running of the time to appeal a decision on a variance to district court <br />The statute merely refers to "receipt of notice" as beginning the appeal time. <br />e. 1'here also are questions as to who may appeal a decision on a variance to the <br />district court The applicant certainly can. The statute also states that any <br />