Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/16/2010 - Special Meeting

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2010 I Volume 41 No. 13 erty, not just the owner's desired use of the property." The court said that the BZA's determination —that the need for the variance arose be- cause the Property was purchased and permitted for a gas station —did "not relate to the uniqueness of the [P]roperty but, instead relate[d] to the uniqueness of Sam's history with the [P]roperty." Sam's history with the Property was not a "condition peculiar to the [P]roperty that limit[ed] the [P]roperty from being developed in a manner consistent with the Overlay Zone," concluded the court. In other words, the fact that the Property had been purchased and was permitted for a gas sta- tion prior to the ordinance amendment did "not support the conclu- sion that the variance could and/or should be granted based on the condition peculiar requirement." Accordingly, the court affirmed the reversal of the issuance of the variance to Sam's. See also: Burcham v. Metropolitan Bd. of Zoning Appeals Div. I of Marion County, 883 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). See also: Bowman v. Metropolitan Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Marion County, Division III, 165 Ind. App. 212, 331 N.E.2d 739 (1975). Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that the fact that Property was purchased and permitted for a gas station before the ordinance was amended was more appropriately applica- ble to the "unnecessary hardship" requirement of Indiana Code § 36-7-4-918.4(4)). Authority —Board sustains objection to issuance of certificate, finding failure to comply with terms of stipulated judgment Applicant says board lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal since it was not based on enforcement of zoning regulations Citation: Hasychak v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Old Say- brook, 296 Conn. 434, 2010 WL 1959801 (2010) CONNECTICUT (05/25/10)—This case addressed the scope of a zoning board of appeals jurisdiction. The Background/Facts: John Hasychak owned a seasonal cottage in the town. His cottage was a legal, nonconforming structure located on a legal, nonconforming lot. In 2004, Hasychak sought to renovate his cottage. The renova- tions required zoning variances. The town's zoning enforcement offi- cer ("ZEO ) denied Hasychak's application for a certificate of zoning © 2010 Thomson Reuters 9 95