Brenmor Props., LLC v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Lisbon, 161 A.3d 545

Background

Brenmor Properties applied under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-30g for a 19-lot affordable housing subdivision on a 12.92-acre parcel in Lisbon; 18 homes, six deed-restricted for moderate-income households.
Interior access for most lots was via a private internal roadway (characterized by plaintiff as a common driveway) that did not meet Lisbon’s roadway ordinance minimum width and maximum grade requirements.
The commission denied the initial and modified § 8-30g submissions, citing noncompliance with the town road ordinance and the State Fire Prevention Code; town staff and the fire marshal expressed safety concerns, while plaintiff submitted traffic/safety expert testimony asserting safe access for residents and emergency vehicles.
The Superior Court sustained Brenmor’s appeal, holding that noncompliance with the road ordinance and the fire code were not valid grounds to deny the § 8-30g application, and directed the commission to grant the application as submitted.
The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that municipal road standards may be considered but deviations are not per se grounds for denial under § 8-30g, and that the record did not show harm to public safety outweighing the need for affordable housing; it also upheld the trial court’s directed grant as not an abuse of discretion.
The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification, adopted the Appellate Court’s opinion as controlling, and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether noncompliance with municipal road ordinance is a valid ground to deny a § 8-30g application	Roadway deviations do not create a safety risk; expert testimony shows safe ingress/egress and emergency access	Town argued road ordinance noncompliance (width/grade) justified denial to protect public safety	Deviation from town road standards can be considered but is not a per se ground for denial under § 8-30g; here record did not show sufficient safety harm
Whether noncompliance with state fire code justified denial	Plaintiff disputed that fire marshal showed specific, case-based analysis of the modified plan or demonstrated substantial public-safety harm	Commission relied on fire marshal’s concerns under the fire code to deny approval	Trial court properly discounted the fire marshal’s general letter regarding the modified proposal; fire code concerns alone did not justify denial absent record evidence of concrete harm
Appropriate standard and scope of judicial remedy when commission unlawfully denies § 8-30g application	Plaintiff sought directed grant of the application as submitted, arguing remand would be futile given record	Commission argued remand should be required so conditions could be considered; raised general usurpation-of-function concerns	Abuse of discretion is the review standard for a trial court’s decision to direct approval “as is”; here directed grant was not an abuse of discretion given the record and commission’s concessions
Whether town ordinance or case law required deference to municipal judgment absent analytical data	Plaintiff: municipal legislative judgment cannot trump § 8-30g balancing absent demonstrated harm	Commission invoked precedents endorsing deference to legislative safety judgments and lack of bright-line analysis	Court distinguished rational-basis facial challenge cases; § 8-30g requires a particularized balancing test—town judgment does not automatically prevail without record evidence of specific harm

Key Cases Cited

River Bend Associates, Inc. v. Zoning Comm’n, 271 Conn. 1 (2004) (sets § 8-30g balancing framework and standards for evaluating substantial public interest vs. need for affordable housing)
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Zoning Comm’n, 284 Conn. 124 (2007) (observes that remedies in § 8-30g appeals may be more expansive than in ordinary land-use appeals)
Bogue v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 165 Conn. 749 (1974) (traditional principle limiting courts from directing administrative action unless only one reasonable outcome exists)
Blue Sky Bar, Inc. v. Stratford, 203 Conn. 14 (1987) (rational-basis review in facial challenges to municipal safety ordinances)
Cormier v. Comm’r of Motor Vehicles, 105 Conn. App. 558 (2008) (addresses deference to legislative safety judgments in equal protection context)