Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies request to allow single-family house in neighborhood commercial zone
Summary
The Norwich Zoning Board of Appeals denied a use-variance application to permit construction of a single-family home on a parcel zoned Neighborhood Commercial; the applicant had asked the board to approve residential use before subdividing the lot.
The Norwich Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 11 denied an application asking the board to allow a single-family home on a parcel zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC).
The applicant, identified in the record as Guillermo Fabrio, had applied for a use variance under Zoning Regulation section 2.3 to permit a residential dwelling where single-family homes are not a permitted use. Fabrio told the board he wanted to subdivide the parcel and build a house to provide care for his sister, saying, "my sister is getting old and has an illness. She cannot live far away from me." He also described the lot's trees and yard as reasons he values the property as it exists.
Board members discussed legal standards for a use variance, including the board's reading of Zoning Regulation 7.10.2 (additional considerations for use variances). Rich (planning staff) read the regulation into the record, including the requirement that a use variance may be granted only when, without it, the private property would be rendered valueless and that applications be referred to the commission on the city plan for comment. The board and staff discussed that the applicant could apply for subdivision approval but that a variance would be an early, lower-cost step so the applicant would not spend money on surveys before knowing whether residential use would be permitted.
Several board members said they sympathized with the applicant’s personal circumstances but differed on whether the application met the legal hardship standard. One member said the property did not appear to meet the standard that the lot would be rendered valueless without the variance; another said the applicant already had a nonconforming residential use and sought to make the property conforming to residential use prior to subdivision. Members noted that granting the variance could functionally amount to a zone change and that the board would lose control over future uses once a variance was granted.
After discussion and motions, the board voted to deny the variance. The record indicates the motion failed and the applicant was advised of the 15-day appeal period and the option to return with additional or revised applications.
The board emphasized that a successful motion to grant a use variance must explicitly state the property-specific hardship relied on; several members said that standard was not met in the materials and testimony presented.
The application was listed on the agenda as: Application B2412 (Assessors map 84, Block 2, Lot 70) — request for a use variance under zoning regulation section 2.3 for the construction of a single-family home, subject to subdivision approval. The board noted the applicant’s proposed subdivision and plan were referenced in the submission but made clear subdivision approval would be a separate, downstream requirement if a use variance were ever granted.
No members of the public testified in opposition; the board invited the applicant to return with further documentation or pursue subdivision or other remedies if he wished to continue the request.
Votes at a glance: the variance application was denied (failed vote). The board told the applicant staff would explain pre-permit steps and appeal rights.
Guillermo Fabrio said he would consult staff and consider next steps.
