146 Conn. App. 355
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Two adjoining lots in Montville (4 Glen Rd and 6 Glen Rd) were under common ownership historically; a house at 6 Glen Rd was built 39 inches from the boundary before zoning took effect in 1966.
- Donahue estate later conveyed 6 Glen Rd to the Cockerhams (plaintiffs); 4 Glen Rd was sold separately to Bialowans who applied for a zoning permit to build a single-family home.
- 4 Glen Rd lacked required area and frontage; Montville zoning allowed construction on a "nonconforming lot" if it met the definition in the regulations.
- The zoning enforcement officer granted the permit treating 4 Glen Rd as a nonconforming lot based on its separate deed/legal description; plaintiffs appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (board).
- The board, after hearing testimony including historical practice evidence, affirmed the enforcement officer, finding 4 Glen Rd was a separate nonconforming lot; the Superior Court affirmed and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of "separately owned" in Montville Zoning Regs §4.13.5 / §1.3 | "Separately owned" means owned by different persons/entities (merger should occur if common owner) | Means described by separate deeds/legal descriptions regardless of common ownership (historical administrative practice) | Court held both readings plausible but deferred to board’s reasonable interpretation that separate legal description/deed suffices; affirming permit |
| Deference to zoning enforcement officer / denial of appellate rights | Court improperly deferred to officer, denying plaintiffs' right to de novo review under §§8-6/8-8 | Board made independent de novo determination after hearing, crediting historical practice — court reviewed board decision, not officer’s | Court held review was of the board and its record; deference to board’s reasonable interpretation was proper and did not deny appellate rights |
| Reliance on out-of-district case law cited by plaintiffs | Plaintiffs relied on other towns’ cases construing similar language to support their reading | Board relied on local historical practice and testimony about drafter intent | Court found out-of-district decisions nonbinding and that record evidence supported board’s interpretation |
| Application of definitions §4.13.5 vs §1.3 (avoiding surplusage) | §1.3 definition should control to prevent §1.3 being superfluous | Both definitions read together; board’s interpretation harmonizes them by applying historical practice | Court concluded the definitions are ambiguous and, given substantial evidence, deferred to board’s reasonable construction |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodbury Donuts, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 139 Conn. App. 748 (Conn. App. 2012) (standards for judicial review of zoning board decisions)
- Wood v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 258 Conn. 691 (Conn. 2001) (deference to agency construction of ambiguous regulations when reasonable)
- Graff v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 277 Conn. 645 (Conn. 2006) (interpretation of zoning regulations is a question of law subject to plenary review)
- Paul v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 130 Conn. App. 847 (Conn. App. 2011) (read regulatory provisions together to avoid inconsistency or surplusage)
- Doyen v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 67 Conn. App. 597 (Conn. App. 2002) (boards are best positioned to interpret and apply their own regulations)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 35 Conn. App. 204 (Conn. App. 1994) (board’s factfinding and credibility determinations entitled to deference)