Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/11/2004

Home

110 Page 4 -- January 25, 2004 In the application, Dupont stated his property was under a hardship be- cause "The street line of Prospect Street cut and established by the town of Manchester adversely impacts this lot as it intersects with Hackmatack Street." The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Manchester den/ed the vari- ance. However, it provided no reason for its. decision. Dupont sued, and the court found the necessary hardship for the variance was not created by Dupont. It directed the board to gant the application. The board appealed.. DECISION: Reversed. The board was not required to grant the application. Dupont's desire to subdivide the property, was a self-created hardship that did not entitle him to a variance. The lower court found the hardship was created by the town because of how it chose to lay out Prospect Street and because it increased the m/n/mum lot requirement long 'after Dupont and his predecessors in title had taken title to the property in 1847. However, a property owner did not have a right to subdivide property sim- ply because he or she owned it..The hardship was created by Dupont's wish to subdivide, not by any of the town's actions. Citation: Duponr v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Manchester, Appellate Co~rr of Connectic~tt, No. AC 23710 (2003). see also: Stancuna v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 785 A.2d 601 (200!). see also: Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 658 A.2d 559 (1995). Appeal -- Commission bases denial on lack of adjoining public road Property owner claims commission couM have accepted road as a public one CONNECTICUT-(1~05/03) -- Fernandes applied to ~.he Newtown planning 'and Zoning Commission for pmx-nission to resubdivide his property [nm nVo lots. The town engineer and the director of community development reviewed the application and made comments. Both highlighted certain regulations that the plan as proposed might not meet. Alter requested revisions were-made, the Newtown Conservation C0m- mission approved the inland wetlands application and granted a permit for the proposed resubdivision. However, after a public hearing, the planning and zoning commission de~ nied the application. It based its denial on the fact. a road bordering the prop- ertv was not an accepted town road and subdivision of land on private roads was prohibited. Fernandes sued, arguing the record was sufficient for the commission to accept the road as a public road under the common law approach and approve the application. DECISION: .Judgment in fa~,,or of commission, The comm/ssion was not required to grant resubdivision approval.