Laserfiche WebLink
March 10, 2011 1 Volume 5 1 No. 5 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />the hardship is created by "a voluntary act by one other than the one <br />whom the variance will benefit." That, however, was not the case here. <br />Rather, the court found that here, the errors of the architect and/or gen- <br />eral contractor that resulted in the roof exceeding the 35-foot height re- <br />quirement were "attributable to the [Ryans] because the voluntary acts <br />of those persons were on behalf of the ones whom the variance would <br />benefit [(i.e., the Ryans)]." Thus, concluded the court, the Ryans' hard- <br />ship was self-created. As such, the Board could not grant the variance <br />sought by the Ryans. <br />See also:' Highland Park, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of <br />North Haven, 155 Conn. 40, 229 A.2d 356 (1967). <br />See also: Pollard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Norwalk, 186 <br />Conn. 32, 438 A.2d 1186 (1982). <br />Case Note: The Ryans' had also asked the court "to recognize a 'de <br />minimis' deviation exception that would obviate the need for the <br />homeowners to prove hardship." The appellate court refused to do <br />so. The court noted that the authority to grant a variance is con- <br />trolled by statute. The governing statute —Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6(a) <br />(3)—did "not allow a variance unless the applicant proves there is <br />an `exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship ...."' <br />Hearings —Court Remands Subdivision Permit <br />Application To Board For Further Consideration <br />Board asks whether applicant is entitled to a contested case <br />hearing or merely a public hearing <br />Citation: Sheridan County Com'n v. V.O. Gold Properties, LLC, 2011 <br />WY 16, 2011 WL 338723 (Wyo. 2011) <br />WYOMING (02/04/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether, <br />under Wyoming law, a subdivision applicant is entitled to a contested <br />case hearing. <br />The Background/Facts: V.O. Gold Properties, LLC ("Gold") owned <br />property in the county. In 2009, Gold submitted a subdivision and fi- <br />nal plat application to the county Public Works Department. The county <br />Planning and Zoning Commission (the "PZC") recommended denial of <br />the application. The Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") ul- <br />timately denied the application. The record basis for the Board's deci- <br />sion was limited to the minutes of the meeting at which the denial was <br />made. This was because the Board's recording equipment failed. Addi- <br />4 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />