Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Page 8 -- September 25, 2005 Variance -- Required setbacks make property development impossible Property owner knew of setback requirements when he bought property Cirario~: Sydoriak v. Zoni~g Board of Appeals of the Tow~ of Prospect, Appellate Court of Cmmecticut, No~ AC 25738 (2005)' CON~%CTICUT (08/09/05) -- Sydoriak bought a triangular piece of property at a tax sale. The property was bordered on all three sides by public roads. Under the zoning regulations, a 50-foot setback was required from any street line. However, this made Sydodak's planned development of the prop- erry impossible.' Sydoriak applied for ~ variance from the setback requirements. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the town of Prospect denied his request. Sydoriak sued, and the court ruled in his favor. The board appealed, arguing Sydoriak's hardship was self-created because he took the property knowing it did not conform to the zoning code. DECISION:Affirmed. Sydoriak's hardship was not self-created. Where a claimed hardship arose from an applicant's voluntary act, a zoning board lacked power to grant a variance. However, if the hardship was created by the enactment of a zoning ordinance and the parcel's owner could have sought a variance, a subsequent purchaser had the same right to seek and obtain that variance. This right was not lost simply because the subsequent purchaser took the property with knowledge that the current zoning regula- tions would prohibit his planned use. Sydoriak's lot was created prior to the enactment of the zoning regulations. The record also revealed neither he nor his predecessor in interest was respon- sible for the later nonconforratty of the lot; the boundaries were created when the town cut a road through a previously existing subdivision. It was the sub- sequent enactment of the zoning regulations, in 1959, and not any act by Sydoriak or his predecessor, that rendered the tot nonconforming. Since these circumstances were beyond Sydoriak's control, Sydoriak was entitled to a variance. see also: Kalimian v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 783 A.2d 506 (2001). see also: Horace v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 855 A.2d 1044 (2004). GET YOUR NEWSLETTER ONLINE FREE WITH · LINKS AT www. quiMamcom 218 2005 Oumian PJbiisi~lng Group. Any ~'eproduction is ~rohibited. :flor more iniormadon please call (6i7) 542-0048.