Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003

Home

July 25, 2003 -- Page 3 Nonconforming Use -- Owners seek second story to building Abutter objects that sewage system information is lacking CONNECTICUT (6/10/03') -- Property owners applied to construct a vertical expansion of their home. At the time of the expansion, the existing building was in violation of setback requirements at one side and the rear, but it was considered a legally nonconforming use within the zone. The proposed structure would add two bathrooms and two other rooms to the existing building, but would not expand the nonconforming footprint. The zoning officer approved and certified the compliance section of the application. An abutter appealed the zoning officer's decision to the zoning board of appeals. The board den/ed the appeal, and the.abutter appealed to the Wial court. Here, the neighbor alleged the decision was not consistent with the setback requirements and the application failed to provide required information about the sewage system. The neighbor also alleged the board acted illegally, arbi- t'rar/ly, and in abuse of its discretion. The lower court decided the board's decision effectuated the zoning regu- lations and the zoning officer and the board had permitted vertical expansions of nonconforming buildings, as long as the footprint of those buildings was not increased. The neighbor appealed. DECISION: Affirmed;. The board properly approved the vertical expansion. The application might not have had sufficient information about the sew- age system; however, the town officials -- including the town samtar/an -- had sufficient information contained in town records to approve the application. The court noted that it was the local health director, not the zoning enforce- ment officer, who was responsible for deciding whether Such ..an application was in compliance. The court also rejected the claim, that there was a vertica/component to the zoning regulations related to setback requirements. The statute contained no provision that setbacks had to be open and unobstructed to the sky. Rather, the setback was between the point where a building touched the ground and the property line. The neighbor failed to prove the board acted improperly. Citation: Vivian v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of CIinton, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 224.72 (2003). see also: Doyen v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 789 A.Zd 478 (2002). Setbacks -- Property owners seek single-family home on waterfront Ordinance requires 75-foot setback from wetlands and water WISCONSIN (6/17/03) -- The Padilla Family Trust owned waterfront prop- erty on the Chippewa flowage and wanted to construct a single-family home 103