DocketNumber: No. CV97 0158652 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4198
Judges: KARAZIN, J.
Filed Date: 4/21/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
At the appeal hearing, this court found that the plaintiffs have pleaded and proven that they are aggrieved and have standing to maintain the instant appeal. See Winchester Woods Associatesv. Planning Zoning Commission,
The relevant background facts regarding this matter are as follows: This dispute originated in 1989 when a conforming four lot subdivision of the subject property was approved by stipulation. At that time, the property was located in a "C residence zone." In 1991, the Norwalk Zoning Commission, with knowledge of the existence of the subdivided property, rezoned the area in which the property was located to a "AAA residence zone" This rezoning rendered the subdivided lots unusable.1 The property has remained unimproved ever since the 1989 subdivision approval.
The plaintiffs argue that the decision of the ZBA to grant CT Page 4199 the defendant's variance should be overturned based on the following four reasons "1) the 1989 subdivision of the subject premises . . . expired pursuant to [General Statutes §]
"The standard of review on appeal from a zoning board's decision to grant or deny a variance is well established" Bloomv. Zoning Board of Appeals.
The trial court must determine whether the board's action was "arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion." Id., 205-06. "Courts are not to substitute their judgment for that of the board . . . and decisions of local boards will not be disturbed so long as honest judgment has been reasonably and fairly exercised after a full hearing[.]" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bloom v.Zoning Board of Appeals, supra,
The record reveals that the ZBA held two extensive hearings regarding this matter. The court has reviewed the transcript of the hearings held on March 6, 1997 and March 20, 1997. There, the ZBA heard argument regarding all of the concerns asserted by the plaintiffs here. At the executive session following the hearing the chairperson stated: "I think we have no choice but to approve this. They need the variances, the hardships are obvious." The ZBA chairperson further stated that: "the applicant has demonstrated that the subdivision is still existing and these properties are valid and that the hardship is that the lots would be virtually undevelopable in any way shape or form without these variances." CT Page 4200
"Where a zoning agency has stated its reasons for its actions, the court should determine only whether the assigned grounds are reasonably supported by the record and whether they are pertinent to the considerations which the authority was required to apply under the zoning regulations. . . . The [decision] must be sustained if even one of the stated reasons is sufficient to support it. . . . [This] applies where the agency has rendered a formal, official, collective statement of reasons for its action." Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra,
In the present case, even if the court were to agree with all of the plaintiffs' arguments, would be inappropriate for the court to overturn the board's ruling. "Our law governing variances is well settled. Section
General Statutes §
A zoning board of appeals "is endowed with a liberal discretion." Francini v. Zoning Board of Appeals,
In the present case, there is a plethora of factual support for the board's decision. First, the defendant demonstrated to the board that the land would be unusable without the variance. "A hardship resulting from. . . . a particular location which makes the property unsuitable for the use permitted in the zone in which it lies may well be such a hardship. . . ." Plumb v. Board ofZoning Appeals,
The record also reflects that the planning commission failed to file requisite notice that the subdivision plans had expired. Therefore, the plaintiffs' concern regarding the validity of the subdivision is unfounded.2 And, there is sufficient evidence in the record to indicate that the variance conforms the subject property to the zoning regulations which currently exist directly across the street from the subject property. Hence, the "comprehensive zoning plan" remains unaffected.
Recalling, once again, that "decisions of local boards will not be disturbed so long as honest judgment has been reasonably and fairly exercised after a full hearing"; (Internal quotation marks omitted) Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra,
KARAZIN, J.