Town attorneys brief New Canaan ZBA on variances, appeals and conflicts

New Canaan — Attorneys from the town’s counsel firm, Birch & Moses, told the Zoning Board of Appeals on an approximately one-hour training call that variances and appeals must meet precise legal standards under Connecticut case law and that board members should avoid conflicts and public statements that could show bias or predetermination.

The briefing focused on two paths the board can use to grant relief: a traditional undue-hardship variance and a more limited route when a proposal demonstrably reduces an existing nonconformity. Town counsel also reviewed the practical limits that recent Connecticut appellate and Supreme Court decisions place on variances and described how the ZBA should treat appeals of decisions by the zoning enforcement officer (ZEO).

Ira Bloom, an attorney with Birch & Moses, opened the discussion by summarizing the statutory role of a ZBA and the two legal conditions typically required for a variance: that the variance not substantially affect the municipal comprehensive plan and that the applicant demonstrate an undue hardship. Bloom emphasized that financial loss alone does not qualify as hardship, saying, “financial loss is not a hardship.”

Nick Bamonte, also of Birch & Moses, reviewed the state-level decisions the board should keep in mind. He described the so-called “E and F” decision from…