Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6
(1949 Rev., S. 842; P.A. 77-509, S. 5; P.A. 88-338, S. 4, 5; P.A. 93-385, S. 1.)
Action in executive session by four members of board not invalid because full membership did not participate. 125 Conn. 720. Board of appeals not unreasonable in denying variance for parking lot in residential zone. 126 C. 228. Provision re variance in regulation was in harmony with section. 129 C. 288. "Hardship" construed. 111 C. 616; 114 C. 15; 120 C. 454; 124 C. 525; 125 C. 715; 126 Conn. 228; 129 C. 280; Id., 285; 130 C. 164; 132 C. 542. Injunctive relief on ground of unconstitutionality of action of zoning authorities cannot be sought until party has been granted or denied a variance by zoning board of appeals. 142 C. 415. Board has power to grant variance under section when its own regulation was limited. 143 C. 132. Zoning board of appeals shall not grant variance unless it can reasonably find that strict application would entail exceptional difficulty or undue hardship on an individual property owner. Id., 542. Similar provision in Bridgeport zoning regulations construed. 144 C. 641. Difference between variance and exception; accessory use defined. 146 Conn. 70. Financial loss or hardship is not sufficient reason for granting variance. Id., 547. Conditions permitting an exception must be found in zoning regulations themselves. Id., 665. Variance denied since hardship was of plaintiffs' own making. Id., 737. In order to warrant a variance, hardship must be shown to differ in kind from hardship imposed on properties in general by regulations. 147 C. 358. Cited. 148 Conn. 33. Board can grant variance for reasons stated in section; mere financial gain to applicant is not sufficient. Id., 443. Zoning board of appeals should not be permitted to revoke former action unless there has been a change in conditions or new considerations materially affecting merits of subject matter have intervened; that applies even though former action was taken without prejudice; where plaintiff purchased property under conditions and restrictions now complained of, ground of "hardship" without support in evidence; also, motive for seeking variance was greater financial return, and any claimed unsuitability of land for residence purposes did not attach any more particularly to plaintiff's land than to zoning district in general. 149 C. 698. Mere financial loss does not constitute hardship warranting granting of variance; but if loss is so great as to amount to confiscation of applicant's property, variance might be justified; hardship warrants granting of variance only if it is different in kind from hardship imposed by regulations on property in general; it must be peculiarly oppressive to applicant's property. 150 C. 391. Zoning board of appeals acting under section must conduct public hearing on every application submitted to it and give timely and adequate notice in accordance with Sec. 8-7. Id., 532. Aggrieved party cannot bypass board by bringing action in Superior Court seeking review of zoning enforcement officer's action. 151 C. 27. Board cannot reverse its decision unless aggrieved party can show a change of conditions or circumstances. Id., 34. For granting of variance, hardship imposed must differ in kind from hardship imposed on properties generally by the regulations; if hardship affects all property in general area, the matter can only be acted on legislatively, not administratively. Id., 49. Special exception not allowed where requirements of regulations not met. Id., 144. Variance allowed where owner built on lot with 100 foot frontage, even where area restricted to 120 foot frontage and owner had prior opportunity to buy lot at its original 120 foot frontage. Id., 165. As variance would not materially impair effectiveness of zoning regulations as a whole, court upheld granting of said variance. Id., 166. When claimed hardship arises because of actions of applicant, board is without power to grant variance. Id., 681. Mere statement that application of zoning restriction to named premises constitutes a hardship not sufficient reason for variance. 153 C. 314, 316. Failure to give posted notice as required by Stratford zoning regulations made action by town zoning board granting zoning changes illegal. 154 C. 420. One who has contracted to purchase property has standing to apply for a special exception or variance governing its use. Id., 426. Refusal of zoning board to grant variance was not abuse of its discretion where applicant had bought undersized lot in district zoned to require 3-acre lots for building. Id., 380. Board had function of deciding whether plaintiff's process of assembling small arms ammunition was manufacture of explosives prohibited by zoning regulation in his area and was not bound by definition of explosives in Sec. 29-83. Id., 558. Cited. 155 C. 175, 180. That property previously equipped and leased as restaurant could not now be leased again as restaurant unless variance was granted to permit restoration of its lapsed liquor permit held not such a hardship as justified board of appeals granting a variance. 156 C. 426. Cited. Id., 588. Appeal to Court of Common Pleas without prior proceeding under section upheld where relief sought was equitable in nature for injunction against town officials. 157 C. 548. Cited. 162 C. 44. Considerations of board in granting variances. 163 C. 179. Cited. Id., 237; Id., 453. Notice which incorrectly referred to an appeal hearing as a hearing on a variance request held sufficient. 164 C. 325. Cited. 165 Conn. 185. Section does not allow a board of appeals when granting a variance to make a new ordinance for a particular property; the statute only allows the board to vary the application of the existing ordinance in enumerated instances. 168 C. 194. Cited. 173 C. 420. Statutory standard of "exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship" interpreted. 174 C. 323. Cited. 178 C. 364; 179 C. 250. Zoning board of appeals lacked authority to grant variance for trailer park since city's zoning regulations prohibited the enlargement of a nonconforming use. 180 C. 193. Cited. 186 C. 32. Section does not preclude review of actions of a commission by zoning board of appeals; relationship with Secs. 8-9 and 8-10 discussed. 186 Conn. 106. Cited. 213 Conn. 604; 217 C. 588; 219 Conn. 352; 221 Conn. 374; 225 Conn. 432; Id., 691; 226 C. 80; 233 C. 198; 235 C. 850; 241 C. 180. In reviewing a zoning board's decision, reviewing court is bound by the substantial evidence rule; the question is not whether trial court would have reached the same conclusion but whether the record before the board supports the decision reached; if trial court finds there is substantial evidence to support board's findings, it cannot substitute its judgment for that of the board; person who seeks a variance must show that because of some unusual characteristic of a person's property, literal enforcement of zoning regulations would result in unusual hardship to such person; the hardship must arise directly out of the application of the regulations to circumstances or conditions beyond such person's control; where extreme hardship has not been established, the reduction of a nonconforming use to a less offensive prohibited use may constitute independent ground for granting a variance; conversion of property use from current nonconforming use as a foundry to prohibited use as automobile repair shop would be less offensive to surrounding residents; decision of board granting variance was proper because it reduced preexisting nonconforming use of property to a less offensive prohibited use. 281 C. 553. Cited. 4 CA 271. Action pending under section cannot be used under prior pending action rule to bar action subsequently brought under Sec. 8-12. 9 CA 534. Cited. 15 CA 729; 18 CA 195; Id., 312; 22 CA 255; 24 CA 49; 27 CA 297; 29 CA 402; 31 CA 380; 42 CA 272; judgment reversed, see 241 Conn. 180; 43 CA 545; 45 CA 702. The threshold issue is whether an order, requirement or decision by zoning enforcement officer was made, thus triggering the statutory framework for appeal. 58 CA 74. Cited. 87 CA 143. The power to vary the ordinance to accommodate practical difficulties and do substantial justice lies exclusively with the board of appeals. 146 Conn.App. 406. Compared with number 305 of special acts of 1931. 10 Conn.Supp. 194. Board is without power to authorize an exception or variance without some basis of fact. 18 CS 48. Possible inconvenience to public and economic disadvantage to owner held not sufficient justification for granting of variance on ground of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. 21 CS 102. Where board passed on issue which was not presented to it in any manner cognizable under the act or the regulations, it acted gratuitously and the application was not within its jurisdiction and should have been denied. 25 CS 279. Rule that board cannot reverse a former decision unless there has been a change in conditions did not apply where former decision was invalid because of improper notice. 26 CS 255. Circumstances under which board's decisions should be overruled discussed. Id., 256. Zoning board of appeals acted in arbitrary and illegal manner in granting variance to defendant where there was no evidence the limitation as to the amount of outdoor storage area was so unbearable a reduction as to be confiscatory or arbitrary. 28 Conn.Supp. 278. Cited. 30 Conn.Supp. 157; 32 CS 223; Id., 625. Zoning board of appeals did not act arbitrarily in denying a variance to use a portion of a residence as a real estate office since a real estate broker is not a "professional person" within purview of zoning regulations. 36 CS 217. Cited. 38 CS 651; 41 Conn.Supp. 218. Subsec. (a): Subdiv. (3): Power to vary regulations must be sparingly exercised; financial detriment to a single owner not sufficient reason. 139 C. 116. Cited. 152 C. 661; 155 C. 42; 165 C. 389, 393. Subdiv. (3): Circumstances in which zoning board of appeals may grant a variance are in substance the same as those specified in section 11.6.3 of the zoning regulations of New Haven. Id., 749. Cited. 179 Conn. 650. Subdiv. (1): Legislative intent that issue of what constitutes nonconforming use should be handled in the first instance by local administrative officials. 180 C. 575. Cited. 181 C. 556; 205 Conn. 703; 206 C. 362; 218 C. 438; 225 Conn. 575; 228 C. 785; 234 C. 498. Zoning commission's denial of application for special exception was an enforcement action and therefore administrative in nature and board of appeals has authority to hear appeals re such enforcement actions. 280 C. 274. Zoning board of appeals had jurisdiction to hear and determine administrative appeal concerning whether certificate of zoning compliance conformed with a stipulated judgment; use of "any" before "order" was intended to convey broad jurisdiction over all orders, requirements and decisions of the zoning enforcement officer, without limitation. 296 C. 434. Municipal zoning enforcement officer's action or inaction with respect to homeowner's letter did not give rise to an independent "decision" that could be appealed to zoning board of appeals. 311 C. 356. Board improperly granted application for variance when evidence established that the property would have economic value if the variance were denied and denial would cause no unusual hardship; 25 CA 631 and its progeny, holding that even in the absence of showing of economic hardship, variance may be granted if literal enforcement of regulation causes exceptional difficulty or hardship because of some unusual characteristic of the property, overruled. 320 C. 9. Cited. 4 CA 205; Id., 500; 12 Conn.App. 90; 15 CA 387; 17 Conn.App. 17; judgment reversed, see 212 Conn. 570; 20 CA 302; 21 CA 594; 23 CA 441; 25 Conn.App. 375; 26 CA 187; 31 CA 270; 34 CA 552; 43 CA 443; Id., 545. Subdiv. (3): Voluntary assumption of hardship does not constitute grounds for a variance. 50 CA 308. Planning and zoning commission was engaged in act of "enforcement" when it granted applicant's site plan application. 58 CA 399. Plaintiff's claimed financial loss is not valid basis for granting variance from zoning regulations because plaintiff's loss does not rise to an unusual hardship under section. 62 CA 528. Subdiv. (3): Claimed hardship for variance is legal where 20-foot setback requirement on 50-foot lot would limit defendant to constructing 10-foot-wide building in commercial zone, perpetuating property's present nonconforming use as single-family residence in a commercial zone, and where variance is in keeping with town's comprehensive plan. 66 CA 565. Issuance of certificate of zoning compliance by zoning enforcement officer is decision by such officer, and appeal from such decision is expressly permitted by statute. 106 CA 1. Because there was no record of an application to the zoning enforcement officer for a certificate of zoning compliance claiming that parcel at issue was a preexisting, nonconforming lot, and hence no denial of such application and appeal therefrom to the board, the issue of preexisting, nonconforming use was not properly before court; a parcel that was not approved as a buildable lot is not one of the conditions that a variance may be validly used to resolve. 117 CA 569. Errors of architect or contractor that resulted in roof exceeding maximum height requirement are attributable to homeowners because the voluntary acts of architect or contractor were on behalf of the homeowners whom the variance would benefit; hardship was self-created and zoning board of appeals was without authority to grant waiver sought; "de minimis" deviation is not recognized in Connecticut. 126 CA 400. Subdiv. (3): Appeal from denial of petition for a variance was not improperly dismissed where plaintiff's inability to build 4 homes on the property constituted a mere disappointment in use and not an unusual hardship. 149 CA 115. Subdiv. (3): Where zoning board granted plaintiffs variance from which a successful appeal was taken, fact that plaintiffs had begun construction did not constitute a hardship under section since such construction was begun before expiration of appeal period; no hardship existed by reason of the size, shape and topography of plaintiffs' lot where all properties in the area were similar in size, shape and grade and regulations affected all similar properties in the same manner. 26 Conn.Supp. 255. Subdiv. (3): Financial disappointment insufficient to support granting of variance absent showing strict application of zoning regulations would destroy economic utility of property; property owners purchasing, with knowledge, express or implied, of zoning regulations, cannot be deemed to prevent valid case of exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship since they were aware, in law or in fact, of zoning restrictions prior to taking title to premises. 29 CS 4. Subdiv. (3): It is improper for zoning board of appeals to grant a variance solely on the basis that variance would improve the neighborhood without another finding of hardship. 51 CS 190.