Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

o Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2009 I Volume 3 ! No. 22 () Curran appealed. Curran again argued that there was no evidence of hardship, as required for the granting of a variance. The Cullens argued that "the evidence of nonconformity to the zoning regulations -[was] substantial enough to find hardship." DECISION: Reverseq and remanded with direction. The Appellate Court of Connecticut agreed with Curran. It held that the Cullens had failed to show "an exceptional difficulty or an unusual hardship, as required for the granting of a variance." The court explained that a variance gives a property owner the authority to use his or her property in a manner forbidden by the zoning regulations. In order to preserve the purpose of "town-and- city-wide zoning," and "protect[] property values," and "secur[e] the orderly development of the community," variances should only" be granted "for relief in specific and exceptional instances," said the court. Thus, before a zoning variance may be granted, there must be a showing of "exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship." Such "hardship must be different in kind from that generally affecting properties in the same zoning district, and must arise from circum- stances or conditions beyond the control ot the property owner." More specifically, pursuant to Connecticut statutory law (General Statues ~ 8-6(a)(3)), zoning boards of appeal may grant a variance only when two basic requirements are satisfied: (1) the variance does not "affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan"; and (2) "adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance" would cause "unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning plan." Here, the court found the Board had failed to find a hardship. It granted the variance based only on a finding that the proposed house would be "keeping within the existing footprint." That reasoning failed to address hardship. Moreover, it was unsupported; in fact the' plan for the new home extended the existing footprint in one corner. Even if the Board had agreed with the Cullens that nonconformity to ' the zoning regulations caused hardship, a variance should not have issued, said the court. Such a hardship was not different from others in the zoning district. Most of the houses in the neighborhood were nonconforming. Since there was no "unusual hardship," the Board erred in granting the Cullens', requested variance. See also: Smith v. Zoning.Bd. of Appeals of Town of Norwalk, 174 Conn. 323, 387 A.2d 542 (1978). See also: Dupont v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Manchester, 80 Conn. App. 327, 834 A.2d 801 (2003). o ./ Case Note: The court emphasized that "[d]isappointment in the use of property does not constitute exceptional difficulty or an unusual hardship" sufficient to support the issuance of a variance. @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 7 47