"Ordinarily, mere financial loss does not constitute a hardship warranting the granting of a variance," pursuant to Krejpcio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, a 1965 decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. The plaintiff, Northrop Road Properties, purchased 11 acres of property in 2007 and requested variances, to subdivide the property into four lots. The defendant zoning board of appeals denied the application. The plaintiff appealed and argued that the board's decision was arbitrary, illegal and an abuse of discretion, because the unique physical characteristics of the property resulted in unusual hardship. In 2001, the zoning commission amended the regulations, to require that certain properties located partially in a drinking water supply watershed area possess a minimum of two acres of buildable area per lot, undivided by wetlands. The plaintiff's proposal to build four lots, if approved, would include one lot with 1.84 buildable lot acres and one lot with 1.68 acres. The plaintiff's economic loss is insufficient to establish unusual hardship, for purposes of a variance, and the court sustained the board's decision to deny the variance.

VIEW FULL CASE