Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Zoning board denies variance for 995 South Avenue reconstruction
Loading...
Summary
The New Canaan Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny a variance allowing the reconstruction of a two‑family structure at 995 South Avenue, concluding the applicant failed to show the unique, property‑specific hardship required under Connecticut case law.
The New Canaan Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request for 995 South Avenue, voting to reject a plan that would rebuild a two‑family structure closer to the front property line than current regulations allow. The matter was continued from a prior hearing and decided in the board’s business session.
Board members said the applicant did not meet the legal standard for a variance, which requires proof of an unusual hardship that is unique to the property. Town counsel cited Connecticut precedent that “a variance is not a tool of convenience, but one of necessity,” and stressed that proof a property retains economic value without a variance generally weighs against relief.
Discussion focused on neighborhood fit, safety and whether the owner could reasonably use the parcel without the variance. Several members noted that while the property is nonconforming in parts, the record showed the applicant could likely rebuild within the existing footprint and comply with wetlands, septic and stormwater rules. Board member Jessica Carden, who said she lives on nearby Forest Street, said the town will change over time but highlighted neighbors’ concerns about scale and sight lines: “There is always gonna be change … but they’ve actually made a lot of steps to try to move the plan back, so it’s actually gonna stand back further from the road.” Town counsel, summarizing case law, said that courts have repeatedly held economic inconvenience alone does not justify a variance and quoted a line of decisions saying variances should be “exercised sparingly.”
Neighbors and the board also pointed to public‑safety considerations tied to setbacks on a state highway and to the visual “volume” of the proposed buildings closer to the road. Members acknowledged some parts of the proposal would reduce existing nonconformities but concluded that, on balance, the changes would increase the perceived bulk and coverage in the front setback.
A motion to deny the application was made and seconded; the board recorded its votes in open session and the motion carried. The board closed the matter after deliberation.
The denial resolves the application before the board; the file shows the item was continued from the prior public hearing and that public comment had closed at that earlier meeting.
