Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

100 Zoning Bulletin .~~ by 34 foot structure on their 7500 square foot lot. The town's code en- f.orcement officer denied the application for a building perinit because the proposed structure would not comply with the setback requirements of the town's zoning ordinance. . The Gliddens appealed the town's code enforcement officer's decision to the toWn's zoning board of appeals (ZBA). In their appeal to the ZBA, the Gliddens asked for a variance from four setback requirements of the . zoning ordinance. The town's zoning ordinance permitted the ZBA to grant variances only when strict application of the ordinance to the applicant and his property would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" was defined as meaning that: (1) the land could not yield a reasonable return unless a variance was granted; (2) the need for a variance was due to unique cir- cumstances of the property and not the general conditions of the neigh- borhood; (3) the granting of a variance would not alter the essential character of the locality; and (4) the hardship was not the result of action taken by the applicant or a prior owner. The ZBA determined that the Gliddens met all of the criteria for "un- due hardship" and approved four variances for the Gliddens. In deter- mining whether the need for a variance was due to the unique circum-. stances of the property and not the overall conditions of the neighbor- hood, the five-member ZBA was divided. Two of the members fciund there were no unique circurristances. One member found that the small size. of the lot demonstrated unique circumstances. Another fciund it was unique because it did not have a house on it, while adjoining lots did. A third said it was unique because of its size and its lack of building. Elisha and Joyce Camp, trustees of Camp Management Trust, which owned property abutting the Gliddens' property, appealed the ZBA's de- cision to court. The Camps challenged the ZBA's findings concerning rea- sonable return and unique circumstances. The court vacated the ZBA's decision. The court found that the Glid~ dens failed to show that they had a "unique circumstance of a too small lot rather than owning one of many substandard lots which [we]re a size consistent with the general conditions of the neighborhood." The Gliddens appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. On appeal, the court concluded that the Gliddens were not entitled to a variance from the setback requirements because they had not shown the need for a variance was due to unique circumstances of the property and not the general conditions of the neighborhood. The court said' that the unique circumstances requirement was met when the hardship suffered by the lot owner was not a hardship that 8 '!f:' ;'f;'",'- ~ '. (~; C. . '.'-.'. ,~ ...:..:' C' ~. --.---------,--.,-..,- . ," '.". . . ...." ' -,.,. .~.;.~."!--