Zoning Variance Application Review Worksheet

This worksheet helps planning or zoning staff evaluate a variance request against the local hardship standard and document a recommendation for the board or hearing body. It organizes the application facts, ordinance reference, supporting documents, impacts, and any proposed conditions in one place. The result is a review record that is easier to audit and easier to turn into a board packet.

It is usually completed by zoning staff, a planning analyst, a zoning administrator, or another reviewer assigned to prepare the staff report. In some jurisdictions, legal counsel or a senior planner may review the hardship findings before the recommendation is finalized. The worksheet is designed to capture the reviewer’s analysis, not the applicant’s narrative.

Use it for each variance application that requires a formal staff review. It is not a one-time intake form; it is a case-by-case worksheet that supports consistent decision-making across hearings. If your jurisdiction handles multiple variance types, the same structure can be reused with different ordinance sections and conditions.

It fits dimensional, setback, height, lot coverage, parking, or similar zoning variances where the decision turns on hardship and minimum relief. The template includes fields for the variance type, the ordinance section, the existing condition, and the requested relief so the review stays specific to the request. If your process is for a use variance or a special exception, you may need different criteria fields.

At minimum, include the application, site plan or survey, photos if available, and any supporting materials the applicant submitted to show hardship. If your process depends on public notice or hearing comments, those should be added before the recommendation is locked. The worksheet has a supporting-documents field so missing items are easy to spot before the board packet is assembled.

It creates an audit trail showing how staff reached the recommendation, which is important when the board asks why a request was approved, denied, or conditioned. The hardship review fields help keep the analysis tied to the ordinance rather than to informal preference. That record can also support internal consistency and reduce the risk of incomplete findings.

Yes. You can rename the hardship criteria to match your code, add fields for neighborhood plan consistency, or insert jurisdiction-specific conditions such as landscaping, screening, or hours of operation. If your board uses a different decision standard, adjust the review factors so the worksheet mirrors the actual legal test.

Use the conditional review section to summarize adjacent property impacts, mitigation measures, and any comments from the public hearing. Keep the summary factual and separate from the recommendation so the record shows both the concerns raised and how staff addressed them. If comments lead to conditions, list those conditions explicitly in the proposed conditions field.

The most common mistake is treating the worksheet like a checklist without writing a real hardship finding. Another pitfall is recommending conditions that are broader than the relief requested, which can create confusion at the board stage. The worksheet works best when each field is completed with specific facts, not generic phrases.