Markatos v. Zoning Board of Appeals, SC21155

Grace Farms obtained a 2017 special permit allowing religious and related uses on its New Canaan property, subject to conditions barring material changes or intensification of approved uses unless authorized. 1
Grace Farms later received a zoning permit for interior renovations to its operations center, including new offices, an expanded office, and a bathroom conversion. 2
The plaintiffs, abutting landowners, appealed to the zoning board, claiming the renovations violated conditions six and thirty of the 2017 special permit. 3
The board denied the appeal in 2019 without articulating its reasoning, and the trial court initially remanded for consultation with the planning and zoning commission. 4
After the commission agreed the renovations were permitted, the board again denied the challenge, and the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal for lack of substantial evidence error. 5
The Supreme Court assumed the remand may have been improper but affirmed because the 2019 record independently supported the board’s original denial. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s remand was reversible error 7	Markatos argued the court had to decide the appeal, not remand.	The board and Grace Farms said any remand error was harmless.	Assumed improper, but harmless because substantial evidence supported the original decision. 8
Whether condition six barred the renovations 9	Markatos said the renovations materially changed or intensified the approved use.	The board and Grace Farms said the interior changes did not alter the use’s character or degree.	Condition six means significant change or increased strength of use, not minor alterations. 10
Whether condition thirty was violated by Unchain-related activity 11	Markatos claimed the renovations helped provide office space for Unchain.	Grace Farms said Unchain had no offices or employees at the property and the operations center remained for Grace Farms.	No substantial evidence showed a condition thirty violation. 12

Graff v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 277 Conn. 645 (Conn. 2006) (zoning regulations should be construed to avoid surplusage 13)
Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 270 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2004) (substantial evidence review in zoning appeals 14)
McLoughlin v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 342 Conn. 737 (Conn. 2022) (substantial evidence standard parallels sufficiency review 15)
Rapoport v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 301 Conn. 22 (Conn. 2011) (when no reasons are stated, court searches the record for support 16)
High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 352 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2025) (if any record reason supports the decision, it must be upheld 17)
Mayer-Wittmann v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 333 Conn. 624 (Conn. 2019) (trial and appellate review are the same on a record-based appeal 18)
Pfister v. Madison Beach Hotel, LLC, 341 Conn. 702 (Conn. 2022) (special permits and nonconforming uses are distinct land-use concepts 19)
Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 703 (Conn. 1988) (nonconforming use principles distinguish vested uses from permitted uses 20)
Zachs v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 218 Conn. 324 (Conn. 1991) (three factors govern whether a change impermissibly expands a nonconforming use 21)
Loring v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 287 Conn. 746 (Conn. 2008) (unsworn counsel statements can be competent evidence before a zoning body 22)