2014/04/22 - LAND USE - VAR - Other

Home Browse Search

3. Unnecessary hardship (To be completed by the applicant) 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. S'e P— q,Haa,lrcJ, • 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. This standard reflects the new Ziervogel and Waushara County decisions. • 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. Note: While Wisconsin Statutes do not specifically prohibit use variances, there are a number of practical reasons whey they are not advisable: • Unnecessary hardship must be established in order to aualifv for a variance This means that without the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. • Mary applications for use variances are in fact administrative appeals Often the Board is asked to determine whether a proposed use is included within the meaning of a particular permitted or conditional use or whether it is sufficiently distinct as to exclude it from the ordinance language. Such a decision is not a use variance but an appeal of the administrator's interpretation of ordinance text. • Zonin¢amendments are a more comprehensive approach than use variances Elected officials consider the lager land area to avoid piecemeal decisions that may lead to conflict between adjacent incompatible uses or may undermine land use plan and ordinance objectives. Towns have meaningful input(veto power) for zoning amendments to general zoning ordinances. o Zoning map amendments can change zoning district boundaries so as to allow uses provided in other zoning districts. o Zoning text amendments can add (or delete) pcmtitted or conditional uses allowed in each zoning district. Is unnecessary hardship present? T YES. Describe. ,S56e- RHac e u NO. A variance cannot be granted. Page 3