On March 10, the Appellate Court released a comprehensive decision addressing zoning variances and nonconformities, with a valuable discussion on what constitutes a “formal, official, collective statement of reasons” for a land use board’s decision. As a bonus, the court provides an analysis of what is required to substantiate a claim that a regulation has a confiscatory effect on a property.
The case, Verrillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. App. 657 (2015), involves a matter where the Branford ZBA granted eight variances, which essentially permitted the applicant-landowner to expand an existing single-family house that was nonconforming as to coverage and most, if not all, applicable setbacks. The variances permitted the expansion of these nonconformities. The nonconforming house is on an undersized lot.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
