Architect Duo Dickinson writes in a first-person column that the Connecticut Supreme Court has narrowed the definition of the "hardship" required to qualify for a zoning variance over the last decade, limiting it to hardship arising from a property's unique characteristics rather than from a homeowner's personal needs. Dickinson writes that the result is that fewer variances are granted and that more buildings are forced to adhere to the literal application of state, federal and local restrictions.
Connecticut architect says zoning limits can be met without variances
Architect Duo Dickinson writes in a first-person column that the Connecticut Supreme Court has narrowed the definition of the "hardship" required to qualify for a zoning variance over the last decade, limiting it to hardship arising from a property's unique characteristics rather than from a homeowner's personal needs. Dickinson writes that the result is that fewer variances are granted and that more buildings are forced to adhere to the literal application of state, federal and local restrictions.
Building in Connecticut involves hundreds of committees that define what can and cannot be built, with at least one in each town, Dickinson writes. On the coast, he writes, multiple hard federal laws govern essential limits on location, and federal regulations along with local conservation, septic and wetlands agencies control where buildings can happen and what can be built. Towns use zoning laws to manage the impact of new construction and apply those rules in times of climate change, according to the column.
Dickinson writes that the difficulty of adapting nonconforming sites and buildings to these regulations has led to more "tear-downs" — the removal of viable buildings to make way for what he calls "useful" ones. He argues the approach undermines environmental conservation and climate change responses, because it throws away the energy already in place in existing structures and requires large amounts of new energy, meaning carbon, to build a new structure where one already exists.
He also writes that the approach undermines affordability, saying that as demand for construction increases, costs rise. Buildings in need of renovation are often left unrenovated, he writes, wasting energy, posing safety risks and perpetuating the environmental problems that coastal and wetlands regulations are intended to address.
Dickinson's stated answer is to design for what the regulations allow rather than to be limited by what is easy to visualize. He writes that this takes time and adds to design fees, and that designers are doing it. He describes five of his own Connecticut projects that he says required no variances and were permitted as of right: a garage rebuilt for a client's children within outbuilding height limits set by a 45-degree line up from the property boundary; a house built over 150 years ago that was brought into compliance through a long, low wing; a new house on a narrow, small site where coverage, septic and height limits produced a two-and-a-half-story rather than three-story home; a house on a tiny site in an extremely sensitive area where FEMA and local zoning requirements produced a one-and-a-half-story home with a first floor twice the area of the top floor; and a new house on a narrow site whose plan, shape and height meet every zoning code requirement.
- The source does not name the Connecticut Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the hardship standard or state the dates they were issued.
- The source does not cite data for the number of variances granted or denied before and after the change, the increase in tear-downs, or the rise in construction costs.
- The source does not identify the towns, owners or permit dates for the five projects described, and the statement that none required variances is the author's own.
- The source presents the trends it describes as the author's account and does not cite outside reporting or data for them.
- The source does not state when the column was published, and the events it describes are not anchored to specific dates.
Read the original at CT Examiner