Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

Page 4. --.hnuary 1 O, 2006 However, no notice of the board's public hearing on Nextel's application was given to the 64 residents of an abutting condominium complex, either by mail, publication, or posting. Kramer, who lived in a top floor unit, awoke one morning to find roughly one-third of the view from his living room picture window blocked by the construction of the structure, about 40 feet from his window. The structure, a brick box about 10-feet high, blocked Kramer's direct view of the city skyline. Kramer sued, and the court mied in favor of the board. It found Kramer's lawsuit fell outside the 90-day Limitation on appeals of zoning decisions under state law. Krarner appealed, arguing that he was entitled to notice regarding the an- tenna project and could not possibly have complied with the 90-day limitation because the project physically began after the 90-day limitation had expired. DECISION: Reversed. Where there was a complete failure of notice of a public hearing in advance of the granting of a special permit, the 90-day limitation could not be deemed to run until the abutter had notice of the project. Kramer received no notice that either permitted him to appear at the hearing or to appeal within the 90-day window. In fact, he appealed almost as soon as he became aware of the structure, almost a year and a half laten In cases where the lack of notice was not fatal, the parties had the chance to appeal within the necessary deadline. Here, it would have been impossible for Kramer to comply. Any other decision in this matter effectively would nullify the requirement to notify abutters of public hearings. A failure to comply would entail no conse- quences, as long as the abutters remained unaware of the issuance of the permit until the expiration of the appeal period. see also: Standerwick v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover, 833 XE.2d 181 (2005). see also: Rinaldi v. State Building Code Appeals Board, 779 N.E.2d 688 (2002). Variance --Board denies attached garage Finds property's use as a residence precludes variance Citation: Jersey v. City of Derby, Superior Court of Connecticut, Nos. CV054002703S & CV044000761S (2005) CONNECTICUT (11/15/05) -- Jersey wanted to add an attached garage with an upstairs living quarters onto his house. However, because the construction went I4 feet into the 50-foot setback, a variance was required. Jersey requested a variance from the City of Derby Zoning Board of Ap- peals. In support of his request, he offered a map showing an irregular lot line setting the rear boundary line and steep topo~aphy across the rear of the lot. Because of this, he claimed that the only practical location for the planned garage was in the area where construction would cequire the 14-foot variance. The board denied the variance. It found that since Jersey already had a 126 © 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproOuction is prohibiteO. Far mare intarmatioe please call {617) 5424048.