150 Conn.App. 831
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- defendant Mark Development applied in Aug. 2008 for a use variance for ~48 acres at 850 Murdock Ave., Meriden, to permit an automotive (used car) sales use in an RDD zone, seeking relief from Meriden Code §213-26.2(C)(1).
- zoning regulations list permitted by-right uses in RDD but do not include automotive sales; variance required to accommodate the use.
- board granted the variance on Sept. 2, 2008, and the city’s enforcement officer contemporaneously notified defendant of the approval citing potential practical confiscation.
- plaintiffs Caruso, Anderson, and the city appealed to Superior Court alleging lack of evidence of practical confiscation and alleging a board member had improper participation due to ties with defendant’s counsel.
- the trial court found a rare, exceptional confiscatory effect and remanded the matter to the board; the court also held that a board member should have disqualified himself, sustaining the appeal on that basis.
- the appellate court ultimately held that the board’s finding of practical confiscation lacked substantial evidence and reversed the judgment, directing dismissal of the variance and sustaining the plaintiffs’ appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is substantial evidence of practical confiscation | Caruso asserts Estrada’s report is insufficient to prove confiscation | Mark Development contends evidence supports confiscation due to zoning limits | No substantial evidence; judgment reversed |
| Whether the board’s decision was proper given the confiscation ruling and remand | Plaintiffs argue confiscation lacked support and remand unnecessary | Defendant argues board could conclude confiscation; remand appropriate | Remand not appropriate; reverse judgment on confiscation grounds |
| Whether a board member’s participation must lead to disqualification | Conflict warranted disqualification | Participation did not affect outcome | Question left unresolved because judgment reversed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 156 Conn. 426 (1968) (evidence of value required; absence fatal to confiscation claim)
- Garlasco v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 101 Conn. App. 451 (2007) (absence of evidence on value fatal to confiscation claim)
- Santos v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 100 Conn. App. 644 (2007) (financial hardship must show conveyance beyond speculative)
- Rural Water Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 287 Conn. 282 (2008) (financial disadvantage alone not enough; must greatly decrease value)
- Jaser v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 43 Conn. App. 545 (1996) (disappointment in use not exceptional hardship; caution in variances)
- Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 281 Conn. 553 (2007) (extreme confiscation concept where regulation renders land practically useless)
- Green Falls Associates, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 138 Conn. App. 481 (2012) (confiscatory effect requires more than market hardship; need substantial impact on value)