Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Page 8 September 25, 1998 Z.B. Variance Owner wants to subdivide already nonconforming residential lot Citation: Kalnitsky v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Montville, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial Dist. of New London, at Norwich, No. 113810 (1998) Kalnitsky owned property in the town of Montville, Conn. The area was zoned residential, but there was a legal nonconforming restaurant building on the property. There was also a house and a pool. -' Kalnitsky wanted to subdivide his property into three lots. One would have the house and pool, another the restaurant, and the third would be a i'esidential building lot. The proposed subdivision would violate the town's setback requirements, because the pool was too close to the restaurant build- ing. Kalnitsky applied for a variance to reduce the side setback of the restaurant's lot from 20 to 8 feet. To be entitled to a variance, he had to show that because of some peculiar characteristic of the property, strict application of the setback requirements would produce an unusual hardship different from that produced on other properties in the zoning district. The zoning board of appeals held a hearing, at which the town's assistant planner spoke against the variance. The planner said Kalnitsky's hardship was self-created and the proposal would continue the restaurant's nonconforming use. Kalnitsky testified that with the variance he could subdivide his property in a more convenient and profitable manner. The board denied Kalnitsky a variance. It found the proposal wasn't com- patible with the town plan's goal of keeping the area residential, Kalnitsky's hardship was self-created, and denying the variance wouldn't cause him undo hardship because he could still use the property. Kalnitsky appealed, arguing the board should have granted him a variance because the layout of the pool and buildings created hardship. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly denied Kalnitsky a variance. The board didn't abuse its discretion in denying Kalnitsky a variance. Kalnitsky didn't present sufficient evidence of hardship at the board's hearing. The buildings and the pool on Kalnitsky's property didn't prevent him from subdividing the property. Kalnitsky was able to make reasonable use of his property as it existed. He didn't have to remove the buildings, and could subdivide the property in other ways that would result in conforming lots. The only hardship was that Kalnitsky wanted to subdivide the property in a manner that would violate the town's zoning regulations, simply because it would be more convenient and profitable to do so. see also: Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 658A.2d 559 (1995). see also: Pollard ~: Zoning Board of Appeals, 438 A.2d 713 (I982). -lq