Maluccio v. E. Lyme Zoning Bd. of Appeals
166 A.3d 69
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Fortunata Maluccio purchased a parcel (6 Red Fox Road) at a tax sale; that parcel had been labeled "recreation area" on the 1970 Green Valley Lakes subdivision plan.
- 1970 East Lyme subdivision regulations allowed the planning commission discretion to require developers to provide "open space for parks and playgrounds as it may deem proper," but did not explicitly mandate a recreation parcel.
- The planning commission approved the subdivision plan in 1970 without explicitly requiring the recreation parcel to be dedicated or retained as open space.
- Developers twice offered to deed the parcel to the town; the Board of Selectmen rejected both offers. The parcel was never deeded, dedicated, or treated as town open space.
- Maluccio applied for a building permit in 2012 that complied with zoning requirements; the zoning enforcement officer denied it citing the original "recreation area" designation. The Zoning Board of Appeals upheld that denial.
- The Superior Court sustained Maluccio’s appeal, finding the board’s decision illegal and unsupported; on certification the board appealed to the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "recreation area" label on the 1970 subdivision plan precludes residential development | Maluccio: the label (at most) created a private restriction, not a zoning restriction enforceable by the zoning officer or board | Board: the 1970 regulations required such a designation and thus the parcel remains restricted from development | Held: The label did not bar development; the board's denial was illegal and unsupported |
| Whether the subdivision regulations in effect required the commission to designate/require an open-space parcel | Maluccio: regs only required showing an allocated parcel for commission consideration, not automatic dedication | Board: the regs required the developer to label/allocate the parcel as open space, creating an enforceable restriction | Held: Regs only gave the commission discretion to require open space; silence meant no requirement was imposed |
| Whether the planning commission had authority to require a "recreation area" specifically | Maluccio: regs authorized open space for "parks and playgrounds," not a separate "recreation area" designation | Board: the historical label should be treated as functionally equivalent and enforceable | Held: The regs did not authorize requiring a "recreation area" label; the commission lacked authority to impose that specific designation |
| Whether the town was required to accept title to effectuate the recreation designation | Maluccio: the court did not hold the town had to accept title; court focused on illegality of denial | Board: argues the town had to accept title to make the recreation restriction effective | Held: Court did not require town acceptance; board’s argument misreads the decision and fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Wing v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 61 Conn. App. 639 (appellate review standard for zoning board decisions)
- Roraback v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 32 Conn. App. 409 (ministerial duty of zoning officer when application complies with regulations)
- Langer v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 163 Conn. 453 (zoning officer must issue permit when application conforms)
- Reardon v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 311 Conn. 356 (discussion of discretionary enforcement of zoning regulations)
- Moscowitz v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 16 Conn. App. 303 (agency powers are limited to those expressly granted)