Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2016

Home

February 10, 2016 !Volume 10 1 Issue 3 Zoning Bulletin for unusual or exceptional circumstances." The court said that for the applicant for a variance to succeed, the applicant must show that, because of some peculiar characteristic of his or het property, the strict application of the zoning regulation produces "an unusual hardship, as opposed to the general impact which the regulation has on other proper- ties in the zone." Thus, explained the court, under Connecticut statutory law, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 8-6(a)(3), courts have found that zoning board of appeals are authorized to grant a variance "only when two basic requirements are satisfied: (1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning plan." With regard to economic hardship, the court said that vari- ances may only be granted when the financial hardship amounts to a confiscatory effect. On the other hand, when a zoning regulation merely prevents land from being used for its greatest economic potential, that does not create the exceptional kind of financial hardship warranting a variance, said the court. Here, the court found no unusual hardship with application of the zoning regulations that would warrant a grant of the variance to the Applicant. There was no financial hardship with confiscatory effect; rather, the Applicant had conceded that it had received numerous offers to lease the existing building. Moreover, the court found that although the "peculiar characteristics" of the property—the fact that the Ap- plicant's building was on a corner lot subject to two separate street setbacks—had made it difficult for construction of a second story to comply with the zoning regulations, those "peculiar characteristics" did not justify the granting of a variance when the Applicant had "made no showing that [the property] could not reasonably be developed for some other use permitted in the [zoning district] or that the effect of limiting the parcel to the permitted uses only would be confiscatory or arbitrary." In other words, that the peculiar characteristics of the Applicant's prop- erty made it difficult to construct a second story on the building that would comply with setback requirements did not justify the granting of the variance when the evidence established that the property would have economic value if the variance were denied. The court emphasized that "when a property would have economic value even if the zoning regula- tions were strictly enforced, the fact that a peculiar characteristic of the property would make compliance with the zoning regulations exception- ally difficult if the property were put to a more valuable or desirable use does not constitute either an `exceptional difficulty' or an unusual hard- ship for purposes of § 8-6(a)." The court said " that if the grant of a vari- ance was justified by "the fact that a peculiar characteristic of a property prevented a landowner from putting the property to a particular use that is allowed in the zoning district.... even when the property would have economic value if the variance were denied," then "the whole fabric of 8 © 2016 Thomson Reuters