Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stratford ZBA denies variance for addition over garage at 210 Spruce Street
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals voted 0-5 to deny a variance sought by Avery Molnar to build living space above an existing garage at 210 Spruce Street, finding the claimed hardship tied to the structure and past family circumstances rather than to the land.
The Stratford Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously denied a variance requested by Avery Molnar that would have allowed a second-floor addition above an existing garage at 210 Spruce Street, reducing the side-yard setback from the regulation to five feet. The board voted 0-5 after debate on whether the applicant had shown a legal “hardship” tied to the parcel of land as required by state statute and local case law.
Attorney Barry Knott, speaking for the petitioner, said the house — built in 1951 and owned by the applicant’s family since 1979 — deteriorated after the applicant’s father died in February 2009 and while the applicant’s mother suffered from multiple sclerosis and later cancer. Knott told the board his client plans roughly $900,000 in repairs and upgrades to a property he said is currently worth about $300,000. “My client's putting about $900,000 into this property when he fixes it up,” Knott said during the hearing.
Neighbor Christine Velasquez, who lives at 500 Prospect Drive, opposed the request and described the effect the proposed addition would have on her yard and light. “His garage is 5 feet from my property … It looks right down into my backyard,” Velasquez said, adding she and two local realtors told her the addition would reduce her property’s value and create privacy and safety concerns.
Board members reviewed written legal guidance and case law provided at the continued hearing. Board counsel and several commissioners referenced Connecticut General Statute §8-6 and local precedent requiring a hardship to be intrinsic to the parcel of land, not solely to structures or personal circumstances. One commissioner said the condition appeared to be tied to the existing structure and family situation rather than to the land itself, and that alternatives existed that would not require a variance.
After discussion, the board took a roll-call vote. The board recorded 0 yeas and 5 nays; the motion to approve failed and the variance was not granted. The hearing record shows the board closed the public portion, moved into adjudication, and then adjourned for the night.
No follow-up direction to staff or conditional approvals were recorded on the matter.
