Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/1998

Home

Page 8 October 10, 1998 Z.B. Variance -- Board challenges court order requiring it to grant variance Citation: Mandanici v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Shelton, Appellate Court of Connecticut, Nos. AC 17469 & AC 17475 (1998) Mandanici bought a three-quarter acre parcel in Shelton, Conn. He planned to build a gas station on the property, but the zoning district prohibited gas stations. .' Mandanici applied for a variance from the city's use, lot size, and frontage regulations, seeking permission to build a gas station and convenience store. State law allowed the zoning appeals board to grant a variance if, because of a parcel's unique conditions, literal enforcement of the zoning laws would result in exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship. The variance couldn't substan- tially affect the city's comprehensive plan, and the owner's hardship couldn't be self-created. The zoning board denied Mandanici's request, and he appealed to court. The court found the board's decision was arbitrary and returned the matter to the board for it to determine if there was enough land for a zoning change. " The board held additional hearings, at which the city engineer and the fire marshal both said the lot wasn't wide enough and didn't have enough frontage so support a gas station. The board again denied Mandanici's variance request, finding it was inconsistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Mandanici appealed to court again, and the court again reversed the board. The court ordered the board to grant Mandanici's application with any reason- able conditions the board deemed necessary. The court said the board could deny Mandanici's application only if he couldn't meet the board's condi- tions. The zoning board appealed. It claimed the court couldn't order it to grant a variance when the owner's hardship was self-created and argued Mandanici bought the property knowing gas stations were prohibited in the district. DECISION: Reversed; variance request denied. The court should have dismissed Mandanici's appeal. Mandanici wasn't entitled to a variance because his hardship was self-created. Mandanici bought the property knowing full well gas stations were prohib- ited in the district. He voluntary gambled that the city would allow him to use the property for a purpose expressly prohibited by the city's zoning laws, and he lost. State law allowed the zoning board to grant a variance only if strict adherence to the zoning laws could cause unnecessary hardship, and the hardship had to arise from circumstances or conditions beyond the applicant's control. Mandanici's hardship was anything but beyond his own control. see also: Kulak v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 440 A.2d 183 (1981). see also: Devaney ~: Zoning Board of Appeals, 45 A.2d 828 (1946).