Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />December 10, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 23 <br /> <br />(~" , act, a zoning board lacks power to grant, the variance;" Cimino <br />'. ' ) purchased the Land with knowledge that it was not a lot in a sub- <br />division but was "remaining land" of an approved four-:-lot subdi- <br />vision. ,Such a "purchase with knowledge" barred a "buyer of an <br />illegal lot from obtaining a variance where he purchased the prop- <br />erty with knowledge of. the problem." Cimino had purchased the <br />Land with knowledge that it had never been approved as a build,. <br />able lot. The hardship now plaguing her was therefore created by <br />her in the initial purchase~ She therefore was not entitled to the re- <br />quested variances. <br /> <br />See also: Grillo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City, of West Haven, <br />206 Conn. 362,537 A.2d 1030 (198.8). <br /> <br />See also: Vine v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of North Bran- <br />ford, 93 Conn~ App. 1, 887 A.2d 442 (2006), judgment rev'd, 281 <br />Conn. 553, 916 A.2d 5 (2007). <br /> <br />. <br />Case Note: Cimino had also claimed that the property WaS <br />worthless, without ~ variance. The court agreed with the Board <br />that there was no evidence presented to support that claim. <br /> <br />(~), <br /> <br />Spot Zoning---Residents challenge rezoning of <br /> <br />~ property owned by more than one owner <br />I <br />I Challengers say rezoning is illegal spot zoning because of <br />~, "common interest" of property owners <br /> <br />Citation: Musi v. Town of Shallotte, 2009 WL 3381864 (N.C. Ct. <br />App. 2009) <br /> <br />NORTH CAROLINA (10/20/09)-ln2006, at the request of <br />property owners, the town's Board of Alderman (the "Board") re~ <br />zoned certain property (the "Property"). The Property consisted <br />of "fifteen separate tracts with six different owners." The Proper- <br />ty was located a mile from the town and had been subject to the <br />county's zoning authority. The owners of the Property applied for <br />"satellite annexation and rezomng" by the town. They asked for <br />a rezoning designation that permitted a higher density of housing <br />units than the county zoning to which they were subject. Eventu- <br />ally, the Board voted to annex the Property and to rezone it as re- <br />quested by the applicants. <br />Subsequently Christopher Musi and Pamela' Sabalos filed a legal <br />action against the town. They asked the court to declare that the <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters 9 <br /> <br />'(J <br /> <br />71 <br />