Ariyan v. Pine Orchard Ass’n, Inc., No. CV084034207S, Conn. Super. Ct., Dec. 3, 2010.
The court in this case held that the Pine Orchard Association had the authority to enforce zoning regulations within the association. Ariyan began constructing a gazebo on her lot, which is zoned with a 20-foot rear setback. Behind her lot is a private, unimproved right-of-way. Ariyan did not initially seek approval of the zoning board before starting construction. However, she eventually did submit an application for a permit, which was denied. She later submitted a second application for a permit and that was also denied based on the setback requirement.
Ariyan then submitted a variance request for the setback requirement, arguing that because there was no barrier between her property and the private right-of-way, the gazebo would not be noticeable if it violated the required setback requirement. Her variance was also denied, and was shortly followed with a cease and desist order for the partially constructed gazebo. Ariyan was asked to remove the gazebo. After the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the decision, Ariyan appealed to the Connecticut Superior Court.
Ariyan argued on appeal that the decision was illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. She based most of her argument on the fact that the regulations did not define “structure.” The court found this unconvincing and held that “structure” is defined using its common and usual meaning. The court also held that the appeal lacked merit because zoning regulators are required to apply the regulations when appropriate, and the fact that the gazebo would not obstruct her neighbors’ views was irrelevant.
This site and any information herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.