My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2011
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2011
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:08:17 AM
Creation date
5/26/2011 2:51:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
06/02/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
April 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 8 Zoning Bulletin <br />The court explained that a variance runs with the land and is not <br />personal to the parties applying for it. For that reason, any condi- <br />tions attached to a variance "must be stated explicitly on the cer- <br />tificate of variance recorded in the land records." Here, the first <br />variance contained conditions that: all construction had to be in <br />conformity with standards put forth by the Federal Emergency <br />Management Agency ("FEMA"); and replanting of beach grass be <br />scheduled for early spring. The second variance contained a con- <br />dition that the air conditioning unit meet specified efficiency stan- <br />dards. The court found: "There was no condition placed on the <br />certificates that would give anyone knowledge that the [Anatras] <br />or the future owners of [the] property forever would be precluded <br />from modifying the property in any manner that was inconsistent <br />with the plans submitted at that time that the [Anatras]'s varianc- <br />es were granted, even if such modifications fully complied with the <br />zoning regulations." Because "[t]he conditions [of the prior vari- <br />ances] did not restrict the [Anatras] from seeking to construct an <br />uncovered deck within the scope of the regulation," the Anatras did <br />not now need to obtain modifications to those variances in order to <br />construct the deck, concluded the court. <br />See also: Dodson Boatyard, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of <br />Town of Stonington, 77 Conn. App. 334, 823 A.2d 371 (2003). <br />See also: Reid v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Lebanon, 235 <br />Conn. 850, 670 A.2d 1271 (1996). <br />Zoning News from Around the Nation <br />ARIZONA <br />Governor Jan Brewer recently signed a law that "gives rescue <br />ranches a chance to seek agricultural status and win exemption <br />from county zoning and building codes." <br />Source: The Arizona Republic; www.azcentral.com <br />CONNECTICUT <br />Westport's Planning and Zoning Commission is considering a <br />proposal to amend Westport's zoning regulations to exempt from <br />the definition of "structure" all swing and play sets that are not <br />buildings, as defined in the regulations. The proposal also seeks to <br />exempt swing and play sets from the town's setback requirements. <br />Source: Westport News; www.westbort-news.com <br />10 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.