Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2009

Home

n -.'-/ /~ ( , ) '..~" ! I I j I I I I j I I I I I I l ! \ (I) ~J Zoning Bulletin May 10, 20091 Volume 31 No.9 borhood;" and that Moon had "failed to establish an exceptional diffi- culty or unusual hardship"-require~ for a variance. Thereafter, claiming no variance was necessary, Moon then- applied to the zoning enforcement officer for a permit to make the proposed renovations. The permit was denied on the ground that a varian,ce was reqlli.red. Moon appealed to the Board. She pointed to ~ 12.6 of the town's zon- ing ordinance, which provided that: No nonconforming building could be "enlarged unless 'such enlarged portion conforms to the regulations applying to the district in which it is "located." She maintained that under ~ 12.6, she did not have to obtain a variance for vertical expansidn so long as the expanded portion of the building remained within the exist- ing nonconforming footprint. The Board denied her appeal. Moon then appealed the Board's decisions to court. On appeal, Moon again argued that she did not need a variance. She also argued that if a variance was required, her requested variance should have been approved by the Board. She said this was bec:ause she had an "unusual hardship" in that strict enforcement of the town's zoning or- dinance "would leave only a small strip of land unsuitable o~ which to build any house." The trial cOurt ruled in favor of the town. Moon appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. ~>-..: On appeal, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that Moon was required to obtain a variance for her proposed second floor expansion tei her nonco:nforming building. Looking at the plain meaning of the lan- guage of S 12:6, the court found that ~ 12.6 was intended to: "restrict the enlargement of nonconforming buildings, imless the proposed en- larged subsection of the buildmg, standing alone and without respect to the charact~ristics oIthe existing building, conforms to the zoning regu- lations." Moon's proposed renovations would not have altered the exist- ing footprint of the building or increased the extent to which the entire building encroached on the front yard. However, since Moon's proposed renovations would "enlarge" the nonconforming building, and because those proposed renovations would not conform to the ordinance's front yard setback requirements, the court concluded that, pursuant to the ~ 12.6, Moon would need a variance from th~ Board in order to proceed with her proposed renovation. Addressing whether the Board properly denied Moon's requested vari- ance, the court explained that "(P]roof of exceptional difficulty or un- usual hardship [wa}s absolutely necessary" before a variance could be grahted. Here, the court found "not a scintilla of evidence in the record" that application of the town's zoning regulation setbacks would create an exceptional difficulty or undue hardship on Moon. Rather, the court @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 3 \ ! 73