127 Conn. App. 125
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs applied for a variance in 2001 to replace a nonconforming cottage with a new home on a small Madison lot, seeking front and side yard variances, increased building coverage, and critical coastal resource setbacks.
- The board approved the variance in 2001, with explicit conditions referencing FEMA construction standards and beach grass replanting; a 2003 variance further increased coverage and allowed exterior additions, including stairs and an air conditioning unit, with additional conditions.
- In 2006 the plaintiffs sought a variance modification to extend a rear balcony deck; the board denied this request and the plaintiffs did not appeal.
- In 2007–2008 the plaintiffs sought a building permit for a proposed uncovered rear deck that extended beyond the existing footprint; the zoning officer denied the permit, stating that modifications to a variance require board approval.
- The trial court dismissed the appeal, ruling the deck required a modified variance; the appellate court reversed, holding the deck complied with regulations and no modified variance was required, and that the variance ran with the land with no further prohibitory conditions.
- The court concluded that the attached variance conditions were explicit and that the certificate should have given notice to future owners; it also clarified how to determine the scope of a granted variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a new or modified variance was required for the deck | Anatra argues the deck complies with §19.5.1 and does not affect setbacks or building coverage. | Board argues that prior variance representations and approvals constrain any modification. | No modified variance needed; deck complies with regulations; appeal sustained. |
| Whether the variance conditions limit the scope of relief | Conditions should not limit the deck beyond the regulatory scope. | Conditions attached to variance were binding | Conditions must be explicit and tied to the land; no broad future-use restriction found; scope limited to explicit terms. |
| Authority to impose and enforce variance conditions | Board cannot extend authority beyond stated conditions. | Board may attach reasonable conditions to variances. | Board had authority to attach conditions, but such conditions were explicit and did not preclude the deck. |
| Whether the variance’s scope is determined by the certificate or the application | Scope should be defined by the variance application and plans. | Scope may be guided by the variance certificate and explicit conditions. | Certificate language governs scope; variance application may inform scope but cannot expand it beyond the certificate. |
| Whether the variance runs with the land and binds successors | Variance should be interpreted to potentially constrain future owners. | Variance runs with the land; explicit conditions must be recorded to bind successors; lacking such explicit terms, broad restrictions do not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goulet v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 117 Conn.App. 333 (2009) (deference to board; standards of review for zoning decisions)
- Burlington v. Jencik, 168 Conn. 506 (1975) (board may attach conditions to variances)
- Dodson Boatyard, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 77 Conn.App. 334 (2003) (variance scope; certificate must reflect conditions)
- L & G Associates, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 40 Conn.App. 784 (1996) (scope of variance informed by variance application and use description)
- Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 164 Conn. 85 (1972) (look to variance application to determine scope of grant)