Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

128 Page 6 -- January 10, 2006 Z.B. be self-inflicted and the result of an unformrmte business decision. Laurel Point gambled and knowingly paid a commercial price for residemially zoned property in hopes of obtaining a variance or expecting the property's zoning would be changed. Although the property might not have been the best site for residential development and it might have been more profitable for Laurel Point to develop the property commercially, this did not entitle Laurel Point to a variance. In general, a landowner was not entitled to a variance simply because an ordi- nance deprived the landowner of the most lucrative and profitable uses. Therefore, the type of economic loss alleged here simply did not justify a see also: Gmat Valley School District v. Zoning Hearing Board, 863 A.2d 74 (2004). Special Exception-- Two church locations cannot hold services at same time Condition addresses traffic and safety concerns Citation: Yagemann v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Greenwich, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 25554 (2005) CONNECTICUT (~. !J22~05) -- Stanwich Congregational Church wanted to build a new, larger church one quarter of a mile away from its existing ~hurch within a' residential section of Greenwich. To do so, it needed a special exception. Since the Stanwich Congregation wanted to keep its existing church, the Planrfing and Zoning Commission of the Town of Greenwich would only ap- prove the church's plan with a condition that the two locations agree not to have services at the same time, and have at least a one hour interval between uses at each site. These conditions were designed to address traffic and safety concerns. The church agreed to these conditions, and the commission granted its approval. Nei~boring landowners sued, and the court ruled in favor of the commission. The landowners appealed, ~guing that the condition was illegal and incor- rectly applied to the existing church, thus invalidating the entire approval. DECISION: Affirmed. The commission's condition properly bound the new church, not the old one. The regulations dealing with site plan approval specifically stated that the commission had to take into consideration public safety, comfort, and conve- nience, and could require modifications of proposed plans to comply with the spirit and the letter of the regulations. The conditions bound the new church, not the existing one, and were clearly related to traffic and convenience concerns, hnportantly, the conditions said nothing about when the existing church could hold its services, only that the new church could not overlap its services with the old church. As such, the commission did not act arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion. see also: Smith-Groh Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 826 A.2d 249 (2003). © 2006 Quinlan Pul~lishln~ Group. Any reproOuction is prot~ibiteO. For more intormotion p~ease call (61'0 542-0048.