320 Conn. 9
Conn.2015Background
- E & F Associates owns 1460–1462 Post Road in Fairfield; the building is nonconforming with respect to setback requirements.
- Property sits on a corner lot in the center designed business district, with a single-story building that fronts Post Road and Sanford Road and is six inches from the rear line.
- In 2012, applicant (1460 Post Road, LLC) sought variances of street and rear setback to add a second story, claiming need for storage/office space and potential higher‑traffic uses.
- The ZBA voted to approve the variances at a hearing, without stating the reasons for approval; plaintiff appealed to the trial court asserting lack of hardship and improper influence.
- The trial court dismissed the appeal, relying on Stillman v. ZBA to hold that peculiar property characteristics could justify a variance when economic value exists without the variance.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Stillman is overruled and the record failed to show that strict enforcement would produce unusual hardship or confiscate value; variance denial is proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board erred in granting the variances without showing unusual hardship | E&F argues no hardship since property has economic value without variances. | ZBA claimed peculiar characteristics make strict enforcement unduly harsh. | Variances improper; hardship not shown. |
| Whether the peculiar characteristics of the property justified a variance when the property would have value without the variance | Stillman-based reasoning is inappropriate; no need for financial devastation. | Peculiarities can justify a variance even if value exists without it. | Overruled; Stillman-based approach rejected; no unusual hardship shown. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied Stillman v. ZBA in reviewing the variance | Stillman supported grant of variance due to unique site constraints. | Stillman should govern board decisions regarding hardship. | Stillman overruled; record lacks basis for hardship. |
| Whether the board failed to provide reasons for its decision and whether the record supports the variance | Board did not articulate reasons; the record shows no basis for the grant under proper standards. | Board reasonably acted within its discretion to grant variances. | Board's decision unsupported; record lacks proper legal basis. |
| Whether the ex officio attorney representation issue tainted the proceedings | Ex officio selectman represented applicant before the board. | Question not necessary to decide given reversal on hardship grounds. | Not reached/undecided after reversal on hardship grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 233 Conn. 198 (Conn. 1995) (financial considerations require substantial destruction of value for hardship)
- Krejpcio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 657 (Conn. 1965) (disappointment in use does not constitute unusual hardship)
- Dolan v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 156 Conn. 426 (Conn. 1968) (no variance merely because regulation hinders profit)
- Miclon v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 173 Conn. 420 (Conn. 1977) (difficulties of access/topography do not justify variance without hardship)
- Stillman v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 25 Conn. App. 631 (Conn. App. 1991) (peculiar property characteristics may justify variance when strict enforcement causes hardship)
- Giarrantano v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 60 Conn. App. 446 (Conn. App. 2000) (variance may be granted when strict enforcement deprives owner of permitted use)
- Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 281 Conn. 553 (Conn. 2007) (clarifies limits of Stillman/peculiar characteristics in hardship analysis)