Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 8 The Background/Facts: Victor and Heather Anatra (the "Ana- tras") owned a home in the Town of Madison (the "Town"). In 2001, the Anatras applied to the Town's zoning board of appeals (the "ZBA") for a variance to replace the then -existing house on the footprint of that prior structure. The ZBA granted the variance. In. September 2003, the Anatras were issued another variance to enable them to install new stairs and an air conditioning unit on the outside of their home. Several years later, the Anatras submitted an application for a building permit to construct an uncovered deck on their property. The zoning officer denied the application. The zoning officer deter- mined that the Anatras needed to obtain modification of the prior variances before they could build the deck. The Anatras appealed the zoning officer's decision to the ZBA. The ZBA upheld the zoning officer's decision. The Anatras were denied a certificate of zoning compliance to enable them to se- cure a building permit to construct the proposed uncovered deck. They were told that they needed to obtain modification of their prior variances. The Anatras appealed to court. The court dismissed their appeal, concluding that the ZBA had acted properly. The Anatras again appealed. On appeal, they argued that the proposed uncovered deck fully complied with, the town's zon- ing regulations. They also argued that the ZBA did not have the authority to "monitor and approve modifications to the structure [that] did not affect aspects of the structure for which variances had been granted." In other words, they argued that they should not be required to obtain variance modifications because: their proposed deck complied with all zoning regulations; and their prior variance did not contain conditions related to the proposed deck. The ZBA did not contest that the proposed deck complied fully with zoning regulations. However, the ZBA argued that the Anatras were bound by their prior variances and needed a new or modified variance to construct the deck. DECISION: Reversed, and matter remanded with direction. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that the Anatras did not need a new or modified variance to build their proposed deck, which fully complied with the zoning regulations and was not pro- hibited by any condition attached to the certificates of variances previously granted. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 9