Village attorney reviews variance standards and quasi-judicial process in board training

The village's Zoning Board of Appeals held a training session led by village attorney Eric Larson focused on the board's statutory powers, the standards for granting variances and the quasi‑judicial procedures members must follow. The session included legal guidance, case examples and reminders about open‑meetings obligations.

Larson told members that the board's principal duties include hearing administrative appeals and deciding area (dimensional) variances and other appeals authorized by village code. "To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest," he read from the statute and said. He added, "Variances are permanent rights unless you say otherwise." (Eric Larson is identified in the meeting materials and introduced on the record as the village attorney.)

Why it matters: members serve as the board's quasi‑judicial body and must apply the law rather than act as a legislative body to rewrite ordinances. Larson emphasized that variances are not routine exceptions and that the property owner bears the burden of proving an "unnecessary hardship" that is peculiar to the parcel, not a personal hardship of the owner.

Larson walked the board through common scenarios. Use variances, he said, are generally prohibited and almost impossible to obtain; the board typically deals with area variances such as setbacks, height limits and lot coverage. He told the board that increased compliance costs alone are not sufficient grounds for relief: "The fact that it costs them money to comply, that's not a good enough reason," he said.

Board members and staff recounted past examples. Members described a case where right‑of‑way changes on Highway 50 led a car dealership (Jeffrey Motors) to receive a variance after reconstruction altered the lot; by contrast, a 2024 request for a 9‑foot fence (where 6 feet is allowed) tied to a neighbor dispute did not meet the legal standard and was denied.

Larson noted that the hardship must arise from conditions unique to the parcel (wetlands or right‑of‑way shifts are valid examples) and not from choices the owner made (lot division or locating a house on a particular side of a lot). He also said the board can impose reasonable conditions and should grant the smallest variance necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose. He cited an ADA example where a time‑limited variance (for a ramp while an occupant requires it) may be appropriate.

On procedure, Larson described the hearing as a trial‑like proceeding: the board must be impartial, hear evidence at the public hearing only and provide written reasons for its decisions (often prepared by staff). He reminded members of open‑meetings rules, warning that off‑record deliberations can jeopardize a decision.

The training was framed as a refresher; members said they had prior experience and were invited to review the packet materials (statutory text and case summaries referenced in the presentation). No appeals or formal quasi‑judicial cases were heard at the meeting.

With no further business, the vice chair called for a motion to adjourn; a motion and second were made and members verbally said "Aye." The transcript records the verbal approval but does not include a roll‑call vote tally by name.