My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2010
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:04:16 AM
Creation date
9/30/2010 3:49:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
10/07/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
121
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Zoning Bulletin <br />September 10, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 17 <br />In so holding, the court explained that Connecticut statutory law, <br />Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8 -6(a), allowed zoning boards of appeal to grant vari- <br />ances only where: "owing to conditions especially affecting [the] parcel <br />but not affecting generally the district in which it is situated, a literal en- <br />forcement of such ... ordinances ... would result in exceptional difficul- <br />ty or unusual hardship so that substantial injustice will be done and the <br />public safety and welfare secured ...." The court further explained that in <br />light of § 8 -6(a), a zoning variance could only be granted where there was <br />"[p]roof of exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship." "Disappointment <br />in the use of property" would be insufficient. In other words, a variance <br />could not be granted for a "personal hardship " <br />Here, the court found that Williams' variance application failed to <br />fulfill the requisite elements. The hardship faced was not unique to the <br />estate's lot. Rather, any hardship faced by Williams because of the Or- <br />dinance was also imposed on similar properties in the town. The effect <br />of the Ordinance was to reduce the building area for "all rear lots," <br />not just the estate's lot. Furthermore, Williams' "main impetuses for <br />seeking [the] variance" were: his "personal hardship" of "difficulty in <br />marketing the property for sale"; and his "disappointment in the use of <br />the subject property" given the "inability to build a larger structure." <br />The court therefore concluded that the Board's decision to grant <br />Williams the variance was in error. <br />See also: Durkin Village Plainville, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of <br />Town of Plainville, 107 Conn. App. 861, 946 A.2d 916 (2008). <br />See also: Hoffer v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Oxford, 64 <br />Conn. App. 39, 779 A.2d 214 (2001). <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court warned that "[u]nless great <br />caution is used and variances are granted only in proper cases, the <br />whole fabric of town- and city-wide zoning will be worn through <br />in spots and raveled at the edges until its purpose in protecting the <br />property values and securing the orderly development of the com- <br />munity is completely thwarted ...." <br />Zoning News from Around the Nation <br />NATIONWIDE <br />The U.S. Senate Banking Committee recently passed the Livable <br />Communities Act The bill, if passed by the entire legislature, would <br />create "$4 billion in neighborhood planning grants for `sustainable' <br />living projects and a new federal office to oversee them." The money <br />would go to "aid Local governments in planning high- density, walkable <br />© 2010 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />73 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.