1986-02-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes February 11, 1986 LeFevere stated there have been many questions regarding the legal principles for variances and that it was not possible for council to know how each and every ordinance could affect future situtations in the city. A variance is available when strict codes do not provide for undue hardship and where the granting of the variance would not have an undue adverse impact on neighbor- ing property. Council needs to determine whether or not there are undue hardships for a unique piece of property, some justifi- cations being lot size, lot shape, severe topographical or soil problems, and water on the property. LeFevere explained that part of the confusion lies in the simi- larity of two legal principles. The neighborhood has presented a letter to the council which indicates the Statutue provides that an undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use. Another very simliar standard, in zoning law matters, is that the property cannot be deprived of all reason- able use. One standard applies to zoning and rezoning actions of the city council, the other applies to variances. LeFevere described the differences by an example: if property is zoned for multi-family residential development which would permit develop- ment of 100 units per parcel and the city downzones the property to an R-l designation so that only 20 units can be developed on that piece of property, there has been a reduction of development potential of 80%. LeFevere further explained that the validity of that action by the council depends on whether or not the court concludes that the property has been deprived of all reasonable use. In the example given, even though the property has been deprived of 80% of its development potential, the courts would, in all likeli- hood, conclude that the property had not been deprived of all reasonable use; that the rezoning was valid; and that a reason- able use remains. In a similar case, if circumstances unique to a property, such as the shape of the lot or unusual topographical situations, reduces the development potential of a site by 80%, that, in all probability, would be deemed to be a hardship be- cause it was deprived of reasonable use because of unique circum- stances. If the zoning standard were applied generally to vari- ances (property deprived of all reasonable uses), at least 80% or 90% of the variances in the communities he is familiar with would not be granted. The second step, once council determines there is a hardship, is that the granting of the variance must not have an undue impact on neighboring properties. In this case, LeFevere believes a legally supported case can be made for a decision either way on each of the two questions. In response to Williams's question, LeFevere explained that the hardship in this case is that about one-third of the lot is a wetland, noting that an amenity can be a hardship at the same time. Page Five