Laserfiche WebLink
April 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 8 Zoning Bulletin <br />ners had to show: (1) a particularized harm to the Kenners' own <br />property; and (2) a detrimental impact on the neighborhoods' vi- <br />sual character. The court found that the Kenners failed to put forth <br />"credible facts to support their allegation that the increased height <br />of the Hiebs' new house [would] block their view of the ocean." <br />Moreover, the court found there was no evidence that the increased <br />height of the Hiebs' new house would have a detrimental impact <br />on the visual character of their neighborhood. Instead, evidence <br />showed that the increased height of the Hiebs' house would have <br />only a de minimis impact on the Kenners' view of the ocean. <br />The Kenners had also claimed that the obstruction of their ocean <br />view by the increased height of the Hiebs' new house would dimin- <br />ish the value of the Kenners' property. The court said that diminu- <br />tion in the value of real estate is a sufficient basis for standing "only <br />where it is `derivative of or related to cognizable interests protected <br />by the applicable zoning scheme."' Given that the Kenners' view of <br />the ocean was not an interest protected by the Town's zoning by- <br />law, and that the land court judge had concluded, in any event, that <br />any impact on the Kenners' ocean view would be de minimis, the <br />alleged diminution in value of the Kenner property was not a basis <br />for standing, concluded the court. <br />See also: Martin v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church <br />of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints, 434 Mass. 141, 747 N.E.2d <br />131 (2001). <br />See also: Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 <br />Mass. 20, 849 N.E.2d 197 (2006). <br />Modification —Landowners Seek a Building <br />Permit to Construct a Deck That Complies With <br />All Zoning Regulations <br />Zoning Board of Appeals denies the permit, saying <br />landowners need to obtain modification of prior variances <br />Citation: Anatra v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Madison, <br />127 Conn. App. 125, 2011 WL 722532 (2011) <br />CONNECTICUT (03/08/11)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether property owners were required to obtain modification of <br />prior variances before building a deck. <br />8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />