Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007

Home

June 1, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 11 While reviewing the facts to determine if a variance was appropri- ate, it became clear that there was some dispute as to the location of the property' line. In addition to the surveyor that contributed to the Hunter's original plan, a previously conducted survey and a survey submitted by Tucker all differed from each other. Intimately, and in part due to the dispute over the property line, Hunter's variance request was approved, Tucker and other neighbors appealed to court for a review of the board's decision. The court up- held the decision, findIDg that strict adherence to the setback require- ment here would result in an unnecessary hardship to Hunter, Tucker appealed, . Decision: Affirmed, . The court had to review the finding of the lower court as if hearing the case for the first time and weigh the evidence without substitut- ing its judgment for that of the board. After reviewing the whole re- cord, the court found that substantial evidence existed that supported the lower court's decision. The board had considered the required factors for granting a vari- ance, which included whether: 1) a hardship existed that was not self inflicted; 2) literal interpretation of the ordinance in question would create a disparate impact on Hunter over similarly situated parties; and 3) granting the variance would create an advantage to Hunter that other property owners in the zone were denied based on the zon- ing regulations. Here, the dispute over the property line created a "special situa- tion" that made it difficult for Hunter's property to be used benefi- cially. In addition, Hunter had conducted a valid survey of the prop- erty and proceeded to build in good faith that he was not violating any zoning regulations. Had Hunter not been allowed to complete the construction of his home, he would have been deprived of property rights that were enjoyed by others in the neighborhood, Because there was no assignment of error, and because there was substantial evidence that the board correctly determined that a vari- ance was appropriate, the decision of the board was affirmed. Appeal-Developer appeals denial of wetlands permit Conflicting rules for service on commission must be decided by court Citation: Primu"S v. Conservation Com~n of Town of Southington,n2007 WL 1363395 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007) CONN-nCTICUT (05/15/07)-Primus submitted an application to the conservation commission for an inland wetlands permit for prop- 3 87