Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />46 <br /> <br />November 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 22 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />the barn was an accessory residential structure "becatiseit was inci- <br />dental, subordinate or secondary to the residential structure and that <br />the [barn] would not change the character of the premises." <br /> <br />Variances-Applicants are granted variance <br />after they claim hardship in home and lot <br />nonconformity to zoning regulations <br /> <br />Abutting property owner argues there is no unusual <br />hardship sufficient to support variance <br /> <br />Citation: Curranv. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Milford, 117 <br />Conn. App. 458, 979 A.2d 599 (2009) <br /> <br />CONNECTICUT (10/06/09)-Maura Cullen Vis coni, Charles R. <br />Cullen:tv and Heather Cullen (the "Cullens") owned property in the <br />. city. The existing home .on the property predated the city's zoning <br />regulations. As such, it was a legal nonconforming use. The lot on <br />which the house stood was also nonconforming. <br />The Cullens sought to demolish the existing home on the property <br />and replace it with a new home "basically within the footprint of the <br />existing home." In furtherance of that proposed project, they filed <br />an application with the city's zoning board of appeals (the "Board"), <br />seeking a variance to: (1) reduce the front yard setback; (2) reduce <br />the right side and left side setbacks; (3) increase the percentage of <br />building coverage; (4) increase the percentage of lot coverage; and (5) <br />build a 24-inch roof overhang. Essentially, the Cullens were trying to <br />stay within the footprint of the existing house, except for one cor- <br />ner of the proposed house, which would be expanded. At a hearing <br />on the variance application, the Cullens' architect claimed that the <br />"hardship" necessitating a variance was the fact that the lot was a <br />nonconforming lot. <br />The Board eventually approved the Cullens' variance application. <br />The board gave the following reasons for the approval: (1) the Cul- <br />lens' proposed house would be keeping within the existing footprint; <br />a,nd (2) under the proposal, the character of the neighborhood would <br />be kept. <br />Hugh R. Curran, the executor of an estate which owned the prop- <br />erty abutting the Cullens', appealed the Board's decision to Superior <br />Court. Curran claimed that by approving the O;1llens' requested vari- <br />ance, the Board acted "illegally, arbitrarily, unreasonably and in abuse <br />of the discretion vested in it." Curran said this was because "no hard- <br />ship had been shown and the decision was contrary to the [city's] zon- <br />ing regulations." <br />The Superior Court upheld the granting of the variance. In doing <br />so, the court found there was hardship "due to the unique nature of <br />complete nonconformance [in] that section of the dty." <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />Po, <br />f '\: <br />I \\ <br />\) <br /> <br />() <br /> <br />( ) <br />,,~/ <br />