144 Conn. App. 224
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Lowney sought a zoning permit to operate a dog grooming business as a home occupation in her attached garage within the Black Point Beach Club Association.
- The association has its own zoning regulations enacted under General Statutes § 8-1 and a special act, applicable to its residential district.
- Section III.4 of the regulations lists permitted home occupations and explicitly excludes uses with more than incidental traffic; it also lists prohibited examples such as barbershops and animal hospitals.
- Section I defines garage and attached garage as part of a dwelling only if physically connected in a permanent way.
- The zoning enforcement officer denied the permit, the board denied the appeal, and the trial court affirmed the board’s decision.
- The issue on appeal concerns whether an attached garage can be treated as part of the dwelling and whether dog grooming qualifies as a home occupation under § III.4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an attached garage is part of the dwelling for purposes of a home occupation. | Lowney contends the attached garage is part of the dwelling and may host a home occupation. | The board and enforcement officer treated the attached garage as not part of the dwelling for home-occupation purposes. | Not reached; court decides on alternative ground. |
| Whether dog grooming qualifies as a home occupation under § III.4.a. | Lowney argues dog grooming is within the scope of home occupations because traffic would be minimal and it is similar to permitted uses. | The board determined dog grooming is not a permissible home occupation under § III.4.a because it resembles excluded uses with greater-than-incidental traffic and parking concerns. | Court agrees with board on alternative ground: dog grooming is not a permitted home occupation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyen v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 67 Conn. App. 597 (2002) (courts give deference but review interpretation as a matter of law)
- Grissler v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 141 Conn. App. 402 (2013) (deference to agency interpretation only if time-tested)