Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/08/1999

Home

Z.B. October 10, 1999 Page 7 use," was simply that the current owners -- themselves -- didn't intend to rent the property. The court dismissed the appeal, finding it had no authority to consider the appeal because the Gangemis had not challenged the condition when the board granted the variance. The Gangemis appealed, claiming the court could nullify the variance condi- tion even though they never challenged it, because the condition was completely outside the town's zoning powers. They said the condition had no connection tO' how the land was used and required them to own the property forever. DECISION: Affirmed. The court properly dismissed the Gangemis' appeal. The condition wasn't personal to the Gangemis, it ran with the land. The Gangemis sought a variance to enlarge their house so they could live in it year round. The board granted the variance exactly as the Gangemis requested it, and the Gangemis were now asking the court to interpret the phrase "family use only" to mean that the condition applied only to them and, as such, was personal -- which the court refused to do. The condition didn't require the Gangemis to keep the property forever. The Gangemis could sell the property at any time, and whoever bought the property would stand in the Gangemis' shoes and benefit from the variance. Neither the original condition nor the board's refusal to remove the condi- tion exceeded the town's zoning powers. The condition lessened the impact of the expansion of the home and the intensification of the Gangemis' noncon- forming use on the surrounding residential neighborhood. The board refused to remove the condition, because the houses in the area were close to one an- other and the "family use only" condition promoted the public health and gen- eral welfare of the neighborhood and preserved property values. The Gangemis' substantial expansion of the house increased demand on municipal services, and tenants tended to be more transient than owners and thus might affect the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Citation: Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Fairfield, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 17688 (1999). see also: Reid v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 670 A.2d 1271 (1996). Eminent Domain -- City has to pay cost of moving tenant's underground tanks MASSACHUSETI'S (8/4/99) -- Mart Oil Heat Company Inc. did business on premises owned by Marr Realty Corporation. Marr Oil had several underground storage tanks on the property. In 1993, the Worcester Redevelopment Author- ity took the premises by eminent domain. Marr Oil asked the authority to pay for the costs it would incur in relocat- ing the storage tanks. According to Marr Oil, the authority was responsible for