Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2014

Home

August 10, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin Having so concluded, the court also found that therefore the current code— MSBC 17.55.020—was not applied retroactively; the setback requirement was simply moved from Title 16 to Title 17, using identical language. Because the setback provision was in place when Tweedy took possession of the property on May 11,1988, and because the code allowed for nonconform- ing structures, the court concluded that the setback provision could not deprive Tweedy of any right or property interest, and the ordinance as applied to Tweedy did not violate any constitutional provision, as Tweedy had alleged. The setback requirement and the lack of a provision to allow for the expansion of existing nonconforming structures were both reasonably related to legiti- mate government purposes, said the court. Prohibiting expansion of noncon- forming structures served the same interests, said the court. Accordingly,.the court found there was no taking or violation of due pro- cess, and the addition was not entitled to any exemption or variance See also: Balough v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 995 P.2d 245 (Alaska 2000). Use Variance —Developer's preferred use is not permitted in relevant zoning district Developer argues it is entitled to a variance because zoning regulations amount to a confiscation of his property Citation: Caruso v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of city of Meriden, 150 Conn. App. 831, 2014 WL 2472256 (2014) CONNECTICUT (06/10/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether zoning regulations caused a confiscation of property such that a zoning use variance was appropriate. The Background/Facts: In 2003, Mark Development, LLC ("Mark Development") purchased property (the "Property") in Meriden, Connecticut. Since 1986, the property had been zoned "Regional Development District" ("RDD"). The RDD zone allowed uses such as conference center hotels, exec- utive offices, research and development, medical centers, a college or univer- sity, and distribution facilities. Mark Development sought to use the property for "used car sales." Because such a use was not permitted in the RDD zone, Mark Development applied for a use variance. In its application for the variance, Mark Development stated it was entitled to the variance because "application of the zoning regulations (and particularly the restrictive permitted uses) drastically reduce[d] [the value of the Property] for any of the uses to which it could reasonably be put, and/or the effect of applying the regulations [was] so severe as to amount to practical confiscation." The City's Zoning Board of Appeals (the "Board") agreed with Mark 10 ©2014 Thomson Reuters