Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The disturbing results of minimum lot-size requirements are myriad. This week, the Appellate Court of Connecticut ruled that a landowner who planned to tear down an existing house and build a new one could not do so, because the property did not meet the zone’s minimum lot size. (Field Point Park Ass’n v. Planning and Zoning Comm’n of Town of Greenwich (App. Ct. Conn. 2007)) The court held that the zoning commission had improperly included, in its calculation, a portion of the lot under a private road that serves the surrounding community; without this portion, the lot fell just short of the two-acre requirement. (Two-acre minimums in Greenwich, an easy train ride to New York City!)
Among the oddities of the Greenwich ordinance are that homes in the area zoned as RA-2 must be set back at least 75 feet from the street, unless the street is especially narrow, if which case the setback must be greater! I guess that the ideas of “high density” and affordable housing haven’t yet traveled their way out to Greenwich (median family income: over $120,000) …
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Katherine Dentzman on A Coordinated Approach to Food Safety and Land Use Law at the Urban Fringe
- Jesse Richardson on Local Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Local Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing
- Samuel on Schleicher and Rauch on local regulation of the sharing economy
- Timothy Wayne George on Is Reed v. Town of Gilbert an important sign case?
- Jan 30 - Boston U Law - The Iron Triangle of Food Policy - AJLM Symposium
- "Basic Human Right" to Farm Your Lawn?
- CFP: Fordham Law: Sharing Economy, Sharing City: Urban Law and the New Economy
- Fennell and Peñalver on Exactions Creep
- March 11-13: Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute's annual conference: Western Places/Western Spaces: Building Fair & Resilient Communities