Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin CONNECTICUT (01/29/07)-The city of Milford acquired a parcel of land from a tax foreclosure that was ultimately put up for auction. Im- portantly, when the decision to sell the land was made, the planning and zoning board recommended a restriction on the land-which was made up of four small lots-so that it could not be used as a separate building lot. Zweeres placed the highest bid on the land, and she obtained the land through a quitclaim deed on Dec. 29, 1986. The. deed was a standard quitclaim deed that contained no special conditions. In 2003, Zweeres filed an application to certify the land as a buildable lot. The assistant city planner circulated the application to the appropri- ate boards, and, observing no objections, he eventually approved the application. The planner noted that Zweeres' application met allof the requirements for a legal, nonconforming use under the city's zoning or- dinance, and posted the land as a nonconforming lot. A neighboring property owner appealed the lot approval to the zon- ing board of appeals. Without holding a public hearing, the board de- cided to overturn the planner's decision and denied Zweeres' applica- tion. Zweeres appealed the board's decision to court. The trial court found that the board violated the city's zoning ordi- nance by reversing the planner's decision without holding a hearing. The court sent the case back to the board with instructions to conduct an appropriate hearing. The board held the hearing, and the planner testi- fied that the application met all of the conditions set forth by the city's ordinance for nonconforming uses. There were four specific criteria that had to be met before nonconforming status was approved. The board voted again to reverse the planner's decision, noting only that the land was "in the records as [four] separate lots." Other than listening to the testimony of residents in support of and in objection to the application, the record showed no other considerations were made by the board in reaching its decision. Zweeres appealed again. Decision: Reversed. Although courts generally give deference to administrative zoning boards, a court could overturn the decision of a zoning board if it acted arbitrarily, illegally, or abused its discretion. In addition, in an appeal involving the decision of a zoning enforcement officer, a board was re- quired to hear the facts of the application as though for the first time, and the decision of the board had to be predicated on those facts. Here, it was clear that the board had not conducted an appropriate hearing. Although there were four criteria upon which the application should have been decided, the board never considered those criteria. It merely observed that it "seemed" like the land was intended to be kept as separate lots. Furthermore, there was no.evidence in the record 4 42