Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/1998

Home

Page 6 - November 10, 1998 Z.B. Variance-- If neighbor builds driveway, must flag lot owners seek variance to build their own? Citation: Kuster v. Town of Colchester Board of Appeals, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial Dist. of New London, No. 113336 (1998) The Mathieus owned a "flag lot" in Colchester, Conn. They applied to the zoning board of appeals for a variance to build a private driveway. The board agreed to grant the variance, provided the land not be subdivided unless a town- accepted road was built instead of the driveway. The Mathieus appealed the condition. Neighbors who lived in a flag lot abutting their property appealed the board's granting of the variance. Under the town zoning ordinance, no private drive serving a flag lot could be closer than 300 feet to another private drive serving a flag lot on the same side of the Street. ~ The board realized the Mathieus didn't need a variance because their neigh- bors' flag lot didn't have a driveway. The Mathieus 'withdrew their appeal, withdrew their variance application, and got a permit to build the driveway. The neighbors didn't withdraw their .appeal. Essentially, they argued that if the board allowed the Mathieus to build a driveway, they would have to seek a variance if they ever wanted a driveway because it would be within 300 feet of the Mathieus' driveway. They alleged this constituted a taking. The board asked the court to dismiss the case. DECISION: Case dismissed. The neighbors couldn't appeal the variance because that issue was moot. Because no driveway serving a flag lot existed within 300 feet of the Mathieus' proposed driveway, the Mathieus didn't have to seek a variance from the zoning ordinance. Although the board initially granted a variance, it subse- quently discovered no variance was needed. The Mathieus withdrew their vari- ance application and sought and received a permit to build the driveway. Ac- cordingly, the neighbors couldn't sue the board for granting the variance. see also: Gurliacci v. Mayer, 590 A.2d 914 (1991). see also: Dawson v. Farr, 632 A.2d 41 (!993). Ordinance m Zoning officer refuses t'o investigate use of property Citation: Ward v. Itasca County Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C3-98-304 (1998) ~ Humeniuk got a permit to run a storage warehouse on "farm residential" property in Itasca County, Minn. He then leased the warehouse to Frito-Lay Inc. Ward, Humeniuk's neighbor, wrote a letter to the county zoning board, asking the board to revoke Humeniuk's.permit because it violated the county zoning ordinance. Ward argued Frito-Lay's frequent delivering and picking up of snack products turned the storage warehouse into a "commodities distribu- tion center," a term not mentioned in the ordinance. He also said Humeniuk's