Was arbitrary or capricious.

Was based on an erroneous finding of fact.

Constituted an abuse of discretion.

Was based on erroneous interpretation of this chapter.

Practical difficulty. A practical difficulty exists on the subject site, such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape or area, or presence of floodplain or topographic conditions, and strict compliance with the requirements of this chapter would render conformity unnecessarily burdensome. The practical difficulty shall have bearing on the subject site, or use of the subject site, and not to the applicant personally. Economic hardship or profit potential is not a consideration for practical difficulty.

Unique situation. The demonstrated practical difficulty results from exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject site at the time the ordinance was adopted, or amended, which are different than typical properties in the same zoning district or the vicinity.

Not self-created. The conditions resulting in a variance request can not be self-created and would have existed regardless of ownership of the property.

Substantial justice. The variance would provide substantial justice by granting property rights similar to those enjoyed by the majority of other properties in the same zoning district or the vicinity. The decision shall not bestow upon the property special development rights not enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district or which might result in substantial adverse impacts on properties in the vicinity. Adverse impacts may include, but are not limited to, the supply of light and air, significant increases in traffic, increased odors, noise, use, an increase in the danger of fire, or other activities which may endanger the public health, safety or welfare.

Minimum variance necessary. The variance shall be the minimum necessary to grant relief created by the practical difficulty.

Compliance with other laws. The variance shall be the minimum necessary to comply with state or federal laws, such as farming activities protected by the Right to Farm Act or accessibility to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A practical difficulty exists on the subject site, such as exceptional narrowness, shape, area or topographic features, presence of quality trees, limited sight distance, wetlands, floodplain or other physical conditions related to the property, that makes compliance with the requirements of this chapter unnecessarily burdensome or would result in unnecessary loss of important natural features.

Granting the variance will not compromise traffic operations, public safety or accessibility by emergency vehicles.

The location requirements of this chapter do not reasonably address the applicant's coverage or capacity needs.

Co-location is not feasible because existing structures cannot support the facility, co-location would result in unreasonable interference, or reasonable financial terms are not available.

The tower is self-collapsing and the setback area provided will accommodate the structure and provide a reasonable buffer should it fall or break.

An increased tower height is required as a result of signal interference due to topography, tall buildings, trees or other obstructions or would reduce the number of towers to the benefit of the Township.

Negative impacts are mitigated through provision for future co-location.

The wireless communications and accessory facilities are designed to be compatible with the existing character of the proposed site, neighborhood and general area, such as a steeple, bell tower or similar form.

The proposed use is compatible with existing or planned uses on surrounding properties.

The site cannot reasonably be used for any of the uses allowed under current zoning.

Public utilities and streets are sufficient to accommodate the proposed use.

An unnecessary hardship exists on the subject property due to very unique circumstances, such as:

The requested use variance is the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land.

The conditions causing the use variance request were not created by any affirmative action of the applicant and would have existed regardless of ownership of the property.

A practical difficulty is present on the property and results in conditions which do not generally exist throughout the Township.

The practical difficulty which will result from a failure to grant the variance includes substantially more than mere inconvenience or an inability to attain a higher financial return.

Granting the variance will result in substantial justice, considering the hardships that will be suffered by a failure of the ZBA to grant a variance, the rights of others whose property would be affected by the variance and the public and the general purpose of the fence standards.

The ZBA shall avoid broad interpretations.

Text interpretations shall be confined to the question raised, shall be based on a thorough reading and understanding of the entire chapter and shall not have the effect of amending the chapter.

If the chapter is silent on a particular use, and the use is not deemed similar to others already listed in the chapter, the ZBA does not have the authority to make such an interpretation; instead, the applicant must seek a use variance from the ZBA or an amendment from the Board of Trustees following an evaluation, public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission.

Map interpretations should be made based on relevant historical information, including prior editions of the Zoning Map, and current and prior editions of the Master Plan Map.