Grissler v. Zoning Board of Appeals of New Canaan, 141 Conn. App. 402

Plaintiffs Brian and Patricia Grissler own 42 Dabney Road in New Canaan, in a two-acre residential zone, and reside there.
A flatbed tow truck used by their daughter, who lived part-time at the home and worked for a Norwalk towing company, was parked on the property for extended periods since 2005.
Section 3.3.A.7 requires that a commercial vehicle over 1,000 pounds be housed in an enclosed structure when stored in a residential zone.
On January 7, 2010, the town issued a cease and desist order to remove and store the tow truck on the property.
The zoning board upheld the order after a March 1, 2010 hearing; the Superior Court affirmed in 2011; the plaintiffs appealed to this court.
The central dispute is the board’s interpretation of the term “storage” in § 3.3.A.7 and whether the record shows the truck was “primarily housed” on the property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interpretation of storage in § 3.3.A.7	Grissler argues no temporal component defined.	Board properly interpreted storage.	Board’s interpretation reasonable; storage defined by non-transient, repeated keeping on property.
Evidence truck was primarily housed on the property	Record insufficient to show primary housing on property.	Record supports storage on property.	Court affirmed; no need to remand.
Standard of review for interpreting regulations	Defer to agency interpretation where reasonable.	Apply plenary review since interpretation of a vague regulation is at issue.	Court conducted plenary review and upheld board’s interpretation.

Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506 (Conn. 2002) (deference limits in review of agency conclusions of law)
Heim v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 289 Conn. 709 (Conn. 2008) (interpretation of regulations guided by general principles of statutory construction)
Sowin Associates v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 23 Conn. App. 370 (Conn. App. 1990) (regulations must be reasonably precise and notice of rights and obligations)