Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 6 Meleyco's use of the sign, including its inclusion of the sign in materials marketing the property to prospective tenants, continued until the end of the lease term (April 2014). In any case, the court concluded that Meleyco's use of the sign continued "at least until [Meleyco] permitted Pawn America to cover the sign in April 2013." And, "[i]n either case," found the court, Meleyco's "use of the sign was not discontinued for more than a year in February 2014," when the City issued to Meleyco the notice of abandonment of the noncon- forming sign use. Therefore, Meleyco was entitled to continue the nonconforming use, said the court. Variance—City's Zoning Board. of Appeals grants use variance after owner claims use limitations result in a practical confiscation of the property City's planning department appeals and points to lack of evidence that property has been deprived of all reasonable use and value under the regulations Citation: Caruso v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Meriden, 320 Conn. 315, 2016 WL 338904 (2016) CONNECTICUT (02/02/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether substantial evidence supported a determination that an ap- plication of zoning regulations caused a practical confiscation of property so as to warrant a grant of a use variance. The Background/Facts: In 1986, the City of Meriden (the "City") created a "Regional Development [Zoning] District" (the "Develop- ment District"). The City's Zoning Regulations provided that six uses were permitted by right on properties in the Development District. Those uses included: conference center hotels; executive of- fices; research and development; medical centers; colleges or universities accredited by the state; and distribution facilities combined with executive offices or research and development. The Zoning Regulations further provided that "[n]o building or premises © 2016 Thomson Reuters 5