02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

December 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 23 Zoning Bulletin Variance-,-Landowner requests variances after purchasing IIremaining landll of subdivision Town denies variance requests after finding no hardship Citation: Cimino v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Wood- bridge, 117 Conn. App.569, 979 A.2d 1048 (2009) CONNECTICUT (10/13/09)-Christine Cimino owned an un- developed piece of land (the "Land") in a residential district in the town. The Land was comprised of 5.06 acres, including three acres of wetlands. Cimino wanted to build a single-family resi- dence on the Land. In furtherance of that plan, she applied to the town's zoning board of appeals (the "Board") for two variances. She asked for a variance from: (1) the toWJ;l'S zoning regulation re- quiri.ng new lots proposed in a residential district have a minimum square footage of 150 feet by 150 feet within setback boundaries; and (2) the town's zoning regulation requiring at least two acres of noncontiguous wetlands. - The Board ultimately denied Cimino's variance requests. It did so based on its findings that: the Land was not a buildable zoning lot; and no hardship was established. The Land, the Board not-- ed, was originally purchased as "remaining land" of an approved four-lot subdivision; and changes to the zoning regulations made subsequent to Cimino's purchase of the Land "have not estab- lished hardship." Cimino appealed. The Superior Court denied Cimino's appeal. It found that Cimi- no had failed to show a hardship necessary for the grant of the vanances. 8 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 70 .-'" / \' , J' \ -' -" ( 1) ';"'-_-:-:'-/ ( P' \ ,I , . '.../