Laserfiche WebLink
May 10, 2010 1 Volume 41 No. 9 Zoning Bulletin <br />conforming lots being able to obtain variances; those purchasing non- <br />conforming lots with knowledge of the nonconformity would not be <br />able to obtain a variance, "regardless of other circumstances." Thus <br />j to hold otherwisewould result in "a per se rule excluding_ those who <br />knowledgeably purchase non -conforming properties from zoning re- <br />lief." This was a rule the court was not willing to adopt. <br />I The court concluded: "the act of purchasing with knowledge [of <br />nonconformity] is not, standing alone, sufficient basis upon which to <br />deny a variance." Thus, here, the town's denial of the Lambs' request- <br />ed variance on this ground was in error. <br />See also: Jobnny Cake, Inc. Y. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Burl- <br />ington, 180 Conn. 296,429 A.2d 883 (1980). <br />See also: Twigg v. Town of Kennebunk, 662 A.2d 914 (Me. 1995). <br />Case Note: The Superior Court had also affirmed the town's de- <br />nial of the Lambs' requested variance on another ground. Under <br />Massachusetts law, G.L. c. 40A, S 10, a variance from a zoning <br />ordinance could be granted only if the zoning authority specifically <br />finds a substantial hardship "owing to circumstances relating to <br />the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or struc- <br />tures...." The Superior Court judge found that, here, a variance <br />could not be granted because "the dry land requirement relate[d] <br />to size rather than `soil condition, shape, or topography."' How- <br />ever, the appellate court disagreed and reversed. It found that the <br />dry lot requirement did relate to "soil condition or topography." <br />Zoning News from Around the Nation <br />CONNECTICUT <br />The Town of Mansfield is considering a zoning amendment that <br />would alter the definition of "family," thereby allowing only a maxi- <br />mum number of three nonrelated University of Connecticut students to <br />live together off -campus. Current tenants and landlords of rental'units . <br />housing four unrelated people would be "grandfathered" (exempted) <br />from the new restrictions. The town's Planning and Zoning Commis- <br />sion says the changes were "designed to protect single-family homes <br />and other properties by preserving the character of Mansfield neigh- <br />borhoods, protecting property values and promoting general `public <br />health, welfare and safety."' Another draft proposal being reviewed <br />i would limit the number of cars that could be parked in front of a rent- <br />ed property. Also, the town is considering the possibility of creating a —' <br />mandatory student tenant registry. <br />10 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />52 <br />