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

Home Search

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