Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2016

Home

March 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 ( Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin may be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose except those listed. . ." In 2003, Mark Development, LLC ("Mark") purchased an ap- proximately 48 acre parcel in the City for more than one million dollars. The property was located in the Development District. In 2008, Mark applied to the City's Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA") for a variance. Mark sought permission to use its property for a used car dealership (which was not one of the six uses permitted as of right in the Development District). Mark claimed that the Zon- ing Regulations "drastically [reduced the property's] value for any of the uses to which it could reasonably be put, and/or the effect of ap- plying the regulations [was] so severe as to amount to a practical confiscation." In support of the variance application, Mark presented evidence in the form of an appraiser's report and a letter from a local attorney. Mark presented evidence of the "unfavorable market condi- tions" in the City for two of the permitted uses —namely executive offices and research and development. As well, both the appraiser's report and the attorney's letter referenced the previous owner's nearly 20-year marketing of the property "with limited to no interest" and the previous owner's inability "to find a buyer with a plan that complied with the [Zoning Regulations governing the Development District]." The ZBA granted the variance to Mark. Thereafter, the City, as well as the City's planner and director of development and enforce- ment, Dominick Caruso, and the City's zoning enforcement officer and environmental planner, James Anderson, (hereinafter collec- tively, the "City") appealed the ZBA's decision to the trial court. The City claimed that Mark failed to present sufficient evidence to dem- onstrate that the regulations had caused a practical confiscation of the property. The trial court concluded that substantial evidence supported the ZBA's conclusion that the property had been practically confiscated. The City appealed, and the Appellate Court agreed with the City. The Appellate Court found that substantial evidence did not support the ZBA's conclusion that Mark's property had been deprived of all reasonable uses. The court noted that Mark had failed to offer evi- dence of the current value of the property or of its efforts to market, sell, or develop the property for any permitted use within the Development District. The ZBA and Mark appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that substantial evidence did not support a determination that application of the City's Zoning 6 ©2016 Thomson Reuters