03/10/2021 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

9 d. A practical difficulty directly created or attributed to the applicant for the variance would be deemed self-imposed. c. The variance must not alter the essential character of the locality. i. Alteration of the essential character of a locality is more likely to exist when proposing a new use as opposed to enlargement of or addition to a preexisting use. ii. No case has defined the term “locality” for purposes of consideration of an application for a variance. iii. No case has defined the phrase “essential character.” d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties so as to justify the granting of a variance. i. By using the phrase “alone” the Legislature presumably believed that economic considerations are one factor to consider in the variance decision process. ii. Is there any circumstance under which economic considerations play so great a role that they become controlling in the decision to grant or deny a variance? 5. Lino Lakes Ordinance Provisions a. §1007.018 contains the criteria pertinent to variances. The standards mirror state law. b. The ordinance provision puts the burden on the applicant to prove that the variance request meets the criteria. 6. After-the-fact Variances. a. The 2009 Stadsvold decision suggested that in an after-the-fact variance situation, additional factors should be looked by county boards of adjustment. The Court noted that an after-the-fact variance is fundamentally different from regular variances, noting that treating them the same can produce unfair results. Questions exist as to whether those factors are still to be looked at in light of the Legislature’s 2011 amendment. Questions also exist as to how to apply the factors with the statutory requirements for the granting of a variance.