Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2010

Home

72 September 10, 20101 Volume 41 No. 17 Zoning Bulletin Variance— Applicant Seeks Variance From Ordinance That Reduced Lot Size, Citing Difficulty in Marketing Land For Sale After board grants variance, abutting landowners appeal Citation: Michler v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Greenwich, 123 Conn. App. 182, 2010 WL 3001652 (2010) CONNECTICUT (08/10/10) —This case discusses the necessary ele- ments needed for the grant of a variance under Connecticut law. The Background/Facts- In October 2007, Van Zandt Williams ( "Williams "), as executor of his mother's estate, sought a zoning vari- ance from the town's zoning board of appeals (the. "Board "). The ordi- nance from which Williams sought a variance was § 6- 131(b) (the "Or- dinance") of the town's zoning regulations. The Ordinance, which had been recently adopted by the town, provided that where two rear lots do not "front" on a street, "[t]he area of access way is excluded from lot area calculation for lot size and [floor area ratio]. Lot size is deter- mined to begin at a point where the lot shape requirement of the zone can be demonstrated (either circle or rectangular)." The Ordinance ef- fectively reduced the building area for the estate's lot. Under the Ordi- nance, the "[i]rtegular shape of [the] lot diminishe[d] [the] lot for zon- ing purposes from 1.2031 acres to .712 acres ....," In the variance application, Williams "claimed, that for financial reasons, it was necessary for the estate to sell the subject property." Williams was concerned that he would have trouble selling the prop- erty because "any new structure built on the property would actually have to be smaller than the residence that already existed." The Board granted Williams' variance request. It did so upon find- ing that there was "hardship due to a change in the regulations [i.e., the adoption of the Ordinance] that effectively reduce[d] the lot area ... and render[ed] the lot non - conforming as to area." Abutting property owners Robert E. Michler and Sally Sandercock Michler. (the "Michlers ") appealed the Board's grant of Williams' vari- ance request. The Superior Court found that the variance had issued in error. The Court found there had been no "unique" hardship that justified the is- suance of a variance. Williams appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that the effect of the Ordi- nance was not unique, as required to grant a variance. 10 . . © 2010 Thomson Reuters