Sec. 8-6. Powers and duties of board of appeals.
Sec. 8-6. Powers and duties of board of appeals. (a) The zoning board of appeals
shall have the following powers and duties: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is
alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement or decision made by the official
charged with the enforcement of this chapter or any bylaw, ordinance or regulation
adopted under the provisions of this chapter; (2) to hear and decide all matters including
special exceptions and special exemptions under section 8-2g upon which it is required
to pass by the specific terms of the zoning bylaw, ordinance or regulation; and (3) to
determine and vary the application of the zoning bylaws, ordinances or regulations in
harmony with their general purpose and intent and with due consideration for conserving
the public health, safety, convenience, welfare and property values solely with respect
to a parcel of land where, owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel but not
affecting generally the district in which it is situated, a literal enforcement of such bylaws, ordinances or regulations would result in exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship
so that substantial justice will be done and the public safety and welfare secured, provided that the zoning regulations may specify the extent to which uses shall not be
permitted by variance in districts in which such uses are not otherwise allowed. No such
board shall be required to hear any application for the same variance or substantially
the same variance for a period of six months after a decision by the board or by a court
on an earlier such application.
(b) Any variance granted by a zoning board of appeals shall run with the land and
shall not be personal in nature to the person who applied for and received the variance.
A variance shall not be extinguished solely because of the transfer of title to the property
or the invalidity of any condition attached to the variance that would affect the transfer
of the property from the person who initially applied for and received the variance.
(1949 Rev., S. 842; P.A. 77-509, S. 5; P.A. 88-338, S. 4, 5; P.A. 93-385, S. 1.)
History: P.A. 77-509 added provisions concerning variances; P.A. 88-338 added reference to special exemptions under
Sec. 8-2g; P.A. 93-385 designated existing provisions as Subsec. (a) and added Subsec. (b) providing that zoning variances
shall run with the land.
See 123 C. 480. Action in executive session by four members of board not invalid because full membership did not
participate. 125 C. 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 this section. 129 C. 288. "Hardship" construed. 111 C. 616;
114 C. 15; 120 C. 454; 124 C. 525; 125 C. 715; 126 C. 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 this 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 C. 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 C. 33. Board can grant variance for reasons stated
in this 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. 149 C. 698. 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. Id. 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. 150 C. 391. 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. Id. Zoning board of appeals acting under this section must conduct public hearing on every application submitted
to it and give timely and adequate notice in accordance with section 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. Id., 49. If hardship
affects all property in general area, the matter can only be acted on legislatively, not administratively. Id. Special exception
not allowed where requirements of regulations not met. Id., 144. Variance allowed where owner built on lot with one
hundred foot frontage, even where area restricted to one hundred twenty foot frontage and owner had prior opportunity to
buy lot at its original one hundred twenty 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 three-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 section 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 this 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; 453. Notice which incorrectly referred to an appeal hearing as
a hearing on a variance request held sufficient. 164 C. 325. Cited. 165 C. 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,
discusses relationship with Secs. 8-9 and 8-10. 186 C. 106. Cited. 213 C. 604. Cited. 217 C. 588. Cited. 219 C. 352. Cited.
221 C. 374. Cited. 225 C. 432; Id., 691. Cited. 226 C. 80. Cited. 233 C. 198. Cited. 235 C. 850. Cited. 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. 281 C. 553. 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. Id.
Cited. 4 CA 271. Action pending under this 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. Cited. 18 CA 195; Id., 312. Cited. 22 CA 255. Cited.
24 CA 49. Cited. 25 CA 631. Cited. 27 CA 297. Cited. 29 CA 402. Cited. 31 CA 380. Cited. 42 CA 272; judgment reversed,
see 241 C. 180. Cited. 43 CA 545. 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.
Board is without power to authorize an exception or variance without some basis of fact. 18 CS 48. Compared with
number 305 of the special acts of 1931. 10 CS 194. 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 CS 278. Cited. 30 CS 157. Cited. 32 CS 223. Cited. 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. Cited. 41 CS 218.
Subsec. (a):
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.
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 this section. 62 CA 528. 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.
Subsec. (a)(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. Cited. 225 C. 575. Cited. 234 C. 498.
Cited. 12 CA 90. Cited. 17 CA 17; judgment reversed, see 212 C. 570. Cited. 20 CA 302. Cited. 34 CA 552. Cited. 43
CA 443.
Subsec. (a)(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. Circumstances in which the 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. 165 C.
749. Cited. 179 C. 650. Cited. 181 C. 556. Cited. 205 C. 703. Cited. 206 C. 362. Cited. 218 C. 438. Cited. 228 C. 785.
Cited. 234 C. 498.
Cited. 4 CA 205; Id., 500. Cited. 15 CA 387. Cited. 20 CA 302. Cited. 21 CA 594. Cited. 23 CA 441. Cited. 25 CA
375. Cited. 26 CA 187. Cited. 31 CA 270. Cited. 34 CA 552. Cited. 43 CA 545. Voluntary assumption of hardship does
not constitute grounds for a variance. 50 CA 308. Claimed hardship for variance is legal where twenty-foot setback
requirement on fifty-foot lot would limit defendant to constructing ten-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.
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 this section since such construction was begun before expiration of appeal
period. 26 CS 255. 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. Id.
Financial disappointment insufficient to support granting of variance absent showing strict application of zoning regulations
would destroy economic utility of property. 29 CS 4. 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. Id.
Subsec. (b):
Cited. 45 CA 702.