Opinion ID: 2361512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Variances

Text: After finding Permanent in violation of height, setback and FAR requirements, the Board denied Permanent's request for a variance from each of those requirements. Acknowledging that the county employees should have detected the errors in the plans, the Board found that Permanent was also the author of its own misfortune in failing to submit properly prepared plans. The Board also found that the code criterion for the grant of a variance had not been met. Section 59-G-3.1(a) provides that the Board of Appeals may grant petitions for variances on proof by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topographical conditions or other extraordinary situations or conditions peculiar to a specific parcel of property, the strict application of these regulations would result in peculiar or unusual practical difficulties to, or exceptional or undue hardship upon, the owner of such property; (b) Such variance is the minimum reasonably necessary to overcome the aforesaid exceptional conditions; (c) .... (d) Such variance will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjoining or neighboring properties.... The Board was not clearly in error when it concluded that Permanent had failed to prove those matters legislatively determined to be appropriate conditions for the issuance of a variance.