Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin area to the house in the process, without obtaining any building permits. The town issued a stop-work order. In response to the order, Hannett applied to the zoning board of appeals for front- and side-yard setback and floor-area ratio variances. To determine variance requests, the town was required to con- sider whether: 1) granting the variance would change the charac- ter of the neighborhood or be detrimental to surrounding prop- erties; 2) the benefit sought by, the applicant could be achieved without a variance; 3) the variance was substantial; 4) granting the variance would have a negative effect on physical or environ- mental conditions of the area; and 5) the hardship necessitating the variance was self-inflicted. Ultimately, Hannett's variance requests were denied. Hannett appealed the board's decision to court, arguing that-since the construction did not alter the original footprint of the building- he did not have to apply for the variances. The court found in the town's favor, and Hannett appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Although the court agreed that the certificate of compliance safeguarded the original building from certain existing zoning requirements, its protection did not extend to the more recently constructed second story. Further, the certificate of compliance was voided when Hannett expanded the area of his building without proper authorization. The loss of the certificate triggered the need for a floor-area ratio variance in addition to the front- and side-yard setback variances from which he was previously exempt. Zoning boards had broad discretion with regard to gr8..J."1ting variances, and there were very limited circumstances under which a variance could be granted. However, the appeals court found that the board had not weighed the benefit of granting Hannett's variance request against the health, safety, and welfare of the neighboring community using the criteria set forth for variance determinations. There was nothing in the record that demon- strated that the board made such a calculation, and, thus, the ap- peals court reversed the order affirming the board's decision and returned the case to the board for proper consideration. Importantly, though courts gave deference to administrative zoning boards, a reviewing court had to look at the record to find whether a board had abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily, 8 160