Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/1998

Home

Page 4 .. May 25, 1998 Z.B. The court ruled Rogers could change the message on the sign. It found the village's zoning amendment impaired the right of property owners to maintain nonconforming uses under a state statute. The zoning board appealed, arguing that under state common law a new message on an existing sign constituted a new use even if both the former and present businesses were permitted uses. DECISION: Affirmed. If the village's argument were correct, the village could effectively defeat any property owner's right to maintain a nonconforming structure. For example, if the village adopted an ordinance prohibiting signs adjoining shopping malls that advertised the businesses in the mall, the village could require existing signs enjoying nonconforming status to be removed whenever there was a change in one of the businesses in the mai1. And if the village amended its zoning ordinance to impose more stringent setback requirements on commercial buildings, the village's argument could be applied to authorize the village to impose those requirements on an existing building simply upon a change in the kind of business conducted within it. This would clearly defeat property owners' statutory right to maintain nonconforming structures. see also: Camara v. Board of Adjustment, 570 A.2d 1012 (1990). Subdivision -- Does proposed college dormitory project require approval from wetlands agency? Citation: Sacred Heart University Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Bridgeport, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, No. 960334198S (1998) In 1995, the city of Bridgeport, Conn., approved the subdivision of property located in a zone that permitted college and university buildings. The city placed a condition on its approval of the subdivision: Neither of the two newly created parcels could be developed without approval from the city's wetlands agency. Sacred Heart University wanted to build a dormitory and classroom on one of the new parcels. The proposed building complied with all the city's zoning regulations. The university applied to the city's planning engineer for certifica- tion that the proposed building was permitted under the regulations. When the engineer declined to certify the project, the university appealed to the zoning board of appeals. After a public hearing, the board denied the university's application, stating the university failed to first get approval from the wetlands agency. The university asked a court to review the board's decision. It admitted it would need the agency's approval before developing the property, but argued such approval wasn't required for a zoning certificate. Under the zoning regu- lations, if a proposed building complied with the regulations, "a written Cer- tificate of Zoning Compliance shall thereupon be issued." The university said