Step 1: Unique property limitations. Unique physical limitations of the property such as steep slopes or wetlands that are not generally
shared by other properties must prevent compliance with ordinance requirements. The circumstances of an applicant (growing family,
need for a larger garage, etc.) are not a factor in deciding variances. Nearby ordinance violations, prior variances or lack of objections
from neighbors do not provide a basis for granting a variance. Property limitations that prevent ordinance compliance and are
common to a number of properties should be addressed by amending the ordinance.
Do unique physical characteristics of your property prevent compliance with the ordinance?
☐
Yes. Where are they located on your property? Please show the boundaries of these features on the site map that you used
to describe alternatives you considered.
☐
No. A variance cannot be granted.
Step 2: No harm to Public Interests (will be completed by staff see below under ‘STAFF REVIEW’). A variance may not be granted
which results in harm to public interests. In applying this test, the zoning board must consider the impacts of the proposal and the
cumulative impacts of similar projects on the interests of the neighbors, the entire community and the general public. These interests
are listed as objectives in the purpose statement of an ordinance and may include:
Protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare;
Implementing the Comprehensive Plan to the extent possible under zoning;
Controlling and lessening congestion in the streets;
Securing safety from fire, panic, and other dangers;
Promoting adequate light and air;
Encouraging the protection of natural resources;
Preventing the overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population;
Preserving and enhancing property values;
Facilitating adequate transportation, water, sewage disposal, parks, and other public facilities;
Promoting high quality and sustainable community design;
Managing growth and the impacts of land development; and
Preserving and enhancing community appearance and quality of life.
Step 3: Unnecessary Hardship. An applicant may not claim unnecessary hardship because of conditions which are self-imposed or
created by a prior owner (for example, excavating a pond on a vacant lot and then arguing that there is no suitable location for a
home). Courts have also determined that economic or financial hardship does not justify a variance. When determining whether
unnecessary hardship exists, the property as a whole is considered rather than a portion of the parcel. The property owner bears the
burden of proving unnecessary hardship.
For an AREA variance, unnecessary hardship exists when compliance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the
property for a permitted purpose (leaving the property owner without any use that is permitted for the property) or would render
conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. The board of adjustment must consider the purpose of the zoning
restriction, the zoning restriction's effect on the property, and the short-term, long-term and cumulative effects of a variance on
the neighborhood, the community and on the public interests.
For a use variance, unnecessary hardship exists only if the property owner shows that they would have no reasonable use of the
property without a variance.