Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2005

Home

110 Page 8 --March 25, 2005 z.g. Ordinance -- Neighbor argues against issuance of permits Claims board misread code Citation: Sciorrino v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oxford, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 24803 (2005) CONNECTICUT (02/0 t/05) -- Park Road was a public street. Old English Road ran off Park Road at a slight angle. Sledziona's property had substantially less than 175 feet of frontage on Park Road and over 200 feet on Old English Road. It also had a driveway to and fromPark Road. V'LZZO' S property lay behind S Iedziona's. It included a 25-foot wide strip of land leading to Park Road, and it had over 100 feet of frontage on Old English Road. Vizzo wanted to build a house on his lot, so he obtained a permit for a driveway leading to Old English .Road. After some confusion, the board of selectmen decided Old English Road was a public street, and Vizzo ultimately received the necessary building perm/ts. Local zoning regUlations defined an interior lot as a lot to the rear of one or more front lots, served by an access-way with a minimum width of 25 feet. It further provided that access to the front and interior lots had to come off the same' road. Each lot hadto have a frontage of 175 feet or more on a public street, except that the interior lot could depend on an easement of access, private right-of-way, or access-way of at least 25 feet in width to a public street. Finally, any interior lot had to be located behind and had to adjoin an acceptable front lot. Sledziona sued to stop the construction. The court ruled in 'favor of the board. Sledziona appealed, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the building permits because his lot was an unacceptable front lot. DECISION: g flirmed. The record supported the board's decision. Because the board of selectmen determined Old English Road was a town road, Sledziona's property had more than 175 feet of frontage on a public street, thereby making Sledziona's property an acceptable front lot even though it had less than 175 feet of frontage on Park Road; Consequently, Viz'zo's property was a proper interior lot because it had an access-way of at leagt 25 feet wide to a public street, and was located behind and adjoining an acceptable front lot. Although Old English Road was a public road, Vizzo's frontage was not long enough to m'ake it a front lot in its own fight. Both tots had access to Park Road and Old English Road, but Vizzo did not intend to put a driveway on the 25-foot wide strip leading to Park Road because the terrain would make it difficult and expensive. Because both properties had access to Park Road, Vizzo's lot was a Proper interior lot regardless of the fact that its.driveway ran to Old English Road. see also: Doye;~ v. Zoning Board of ApPeals, 789 A.2d 478 (2002). see also: Cyb~dski v. P[aJming & Zoning Commissim~, 682. A.2d 1073 (1996). © 2005 Qulnlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more ;nterrnalion please catl (617) 542-0048.