PL PACKET 01172023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11 (3)Special conditions and circumstances causing practical difficulties shall not be a result of lot size or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. (b)Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter, or deny the applicant of the ability to put the property in question to a reasonable use. (c)The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (d)Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. (e)The request is not a use variance. (f)Variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. It is important to notice that each of these standards must be met in order to qualify for variance consideration. Variances should be put to this test rigorously in order that the City applies its ordinances equitably. Finally, the City may still deny a variance if despite these conditions, the result would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. However, where the refusal to grant a variance results in a situation which makes it impossible to use the land under the ordinance, the City may be found liable for a “regulatory taking”, effectively requiring the City to compensate the property owner for the fair market value of the property. Findings of Fact Findings of Fact - The legal, written substantiation for a land use decision. One of the most critical factors in making land use decisions, whether rezonings, variances, conditional use permits, or subdivisions, is that the decision meets the legal standard for local government land use regulation. This is often called the “rational basis” standard of review. In short, a local government may regulate land use so long as there is a rational basis for the regulation, and the regulation bears a reasonable relationship to the attainment of a legitimate governmental interest. Violations of this test are often called “arbitrary and capricious”. For many land use decisions, there are numerous reasons the decision was made. Each of these reasons may be completely legitimate, and based on evidence available to the Planning Commission or City Council. However, if a decision is challenged, and the City has not made its decision accompanied by written findings of fact, the Court may throw out the City’s decision, and put itself in the City’s place. There are a number of standards to apply when making the findings: 1.Findings need to be made “contemporaneously” with the decision. The City does not have the latitude to decide an issue one month, then adopt formal findings the next. Recent court decisions have made it clear that the City needs to support its