Property owned by the Holts was located in a coastal area management overlay district (“coastal zone”) and a flood hazard overlay district (“flood zone”). The Holts wanted to raze the existing house on the property and construct a new one. The Holts’ existing house was located 44 feet from the mean high tide, and they wanted to locate the new house 47 feet from the mean high tide. Town zoning regulations required that “[a]ll new construction . . . shall be located 100 feet landward of the reach of the mean high-tide.” In furtherance of their proposal, and in accordance with the town zoning regulations, the Holts filed a variance application with the town.
They also filed an application for a coastal site plan review, which pursuant to the town zoning regulations and state law, was required to accompany variance applications for projects within, or partly within, the coastal boundary. Ultimately, the ZBA approved both the variance and the coastal site plan review applications.
The Hescocks, neighbors of the Holts, appealed the ZBA’s decision. They argued, among other things that: (1) the ZBA’s decision to approve the coastal site plan review application was not supported by substantial evidence, as required; and (2) the ZBA’s decision to approve the variance was improper because there was no substantial evidence of unusual hardship.
On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court held that the ZBA’s approval of the application for coastal site plan review was supported by substantial evidence. In reaching that conclusion, the court found that the record before the ZBA contained “sufficient information” for the ZBA to evaluate the application and determine the extent and acceptability of potential adverse impacts. The court also held that the ZBA’s decision to grant the Holts’ variance application was proper because, although an extreme hardship was not established, the reduction of the nonconformances of the existing house to the “less offensive” proposed house was an independent basis on which the ZBA could grant the variance.
Hescock v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Stonington, 2009 WL 94537 (Conn. App. 1/20/2009)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP120.pdf
This summary can be found in Quinlan’s Zoning Law Alert. For a free subscription click here.
