Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 3 <br />town- and city-wide zoning [would] be worn through in spots and rav- <br />eled at the edges until its purpose in protecting the property values and <br />securing the orderly development of the community [would be] com- <br />pletely thwarted." Thus, the court concluded here that the denial of the <br />requested variances would cause no unusual hardship, and therefore the <br />Board improperly granted the Applicant's application for variances. The <br />court remanded the matter to the trial court with direction to deny the <br />Applicant's application for the variances. <br />See also: Bloom v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Norwalk, 233 <br />Conn. 198, 658 A.2d 559 (1995). <br />See also: Krejpcio v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Hartford, 152 <br />Conn. 657, 211 A.2d 687 (1965). <br />Case Note: <br />In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court of Connecticut overruled several <br />appellate court decisions in the following cases: Stillman v. Zoning Bd. of Ap- <br />peals of Town of Redding, 25 Conn. App. 631, 596 A.2d 1 (1991); Jersey v. <br />Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Derby, 101 Conn. App. 350, 921 A.2d 683 <br />(2007); Giarrantano v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Norwich, 60 Conn. <br />App. 446, 760 A.2d 132 (2000). Those decisions had held that "even in the <br />absence of a showing that the denial of the variance [would cause economic <br />hardship, [a] variance may be granted if the literal enforcement of a regula- <br />tion causes exceptional difficulty or hardship because of some unusual <br />characteristic of the property.' " <br />Reconsideration/Procedure <br />Village rescinds approval of <br />subdivision <br />Developers claim vested rights to <br />development based on initial approval <br />Citation: Sullivan Farms IV, LLC v. Village of Wurtsboro, 2015 WL <br />8373781 (NY. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015) <br />NEW YORK (12/10/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether it <br />was within the discretion of a village planning board to rescind subdivi- <br />sion and site plan approvals for a housing development. <br />The Background/Facts: Sullivan Farms II, Inc. ("Sullivan Farms <br />II") owned approximately 54 acres of real property in the Village of <br />Wurtsboro, Sullivan County (the "Village") and 31 acres of adjoining <br />© 2016 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />