The Administrative Hearing Officer shall not approve a variance application unless, based upon the evidence presented, it finds that all of the following apply:
(A) Literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant, with the applicant providing evidence that the hardship is located on, or associated with, the subject property for which the variance is sought, and is peculiar to the property rather than conditions generally existing on other properties in the same zoning district or immediate area;
(B) The identified hardship is not self-imposed;
(C) The identified hardship is not economic in nature;
(D) There exist special circumstances attached to the property that do not apply to other properties in the same zoning district. The Administrative Hearing Officer may find an unreasonable hardship exists only if the alleged hardship is located on or associated with the property for which the variance is sought and comes from circumstances peculiar to the property, not from conditions that are general to the neighborhood;
(E) The variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. The Administrative Hearing Officer may find that special circumstances are attached to the property and exist only if the special circumstances relate to the hardship complained of and deprive the property of privileges granted to other properties in the same zoning district; and
(F) The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
(Prior Code, § 10-13-3) (Ord. passed 8-10-2006)