Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

Z.B. March 25, 2006 ~ Page 3 Variance -- Split vote leads to height variance denial Had previously been approved in package of other variances Citation: Hallier v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the District of Short Beach, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven, at New Haven, No. CV054008492S (2006) CONNECTICUT (01/11/06)-- Hallier applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the District of Short Beach for set-back, lot coverage, and building height variances for a new house. The board voted on the three variances as one package. Ultimately, the application was approved. Following publication of the decision, the board receiyed two letters com- plaining of insufficient notice. Consequently, the board notified Hallier that it would be rehearing her application on Feb. 7, 2005. At the Fib. 7 hearing, Hallier's arch/tect made a presentation in support of the variance. After discussion about the height variance, the board decided to vote on each variance separately. Although the set-back and lot coverage variances were again approved, the height variance was not. Hailier sued, arguing that the board acted arbitrar/ly and capriciously in denying the height variance. DECISION: Judgment in favor of board. The board's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. A variance was required only where strictly adhering to the zoning regula- tions would cause unusual hardship owing to conditions uniquely affecting one parcel but not the district as a whole. Hallier probably expected that the board would grant her application again at the Feb. 7 meeting. It was the same five-member board and her architect made essentially the same presentation. Even the letter that triggered the hearing seemed to suggest that a reconvened hearing would be largely a formality intended to eliminate "uncertainty" for both the board and the ap- plicant. However, even though it reached a different result, the board did not act im. propefly. The record showed genuine concern about the height of houses in the district. This was understandable in a shorefront community where water views were prized. The record of the hearing further showed that some board members questioned whether the house design could be adjusted so as to meet the height requirements. The zoning regulations limited the height of the buildings to 30 feet; Hallier sought to build a home that was five feet taller. The height variance was, by far, the issue that generated the most discus- sion at the hearing. Importantly, by unbundling the vote, each member had to vote separately on each of the three variances sought. While the record was silent as to why some board members decided to change their vote on the © 2006 Quintan Publish,n§ Group. Any reproduction is pmhib~teo. For more information please call {817} 5,12-0D48. 47