155 Conn. App. 657
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Branford Zoning Regulations prohibit expanding nonconforming structures; property at 112 Limewood Ave is a legally nonconforming lot with a nonconforming residence in R-2 district.
- Applicants sought eight variances to expand the existing nonconforming structure (setbacks, FAR, lot coverage, narrow-street waiver, and nonconformity expansion).
- Board granted variances at a March 20, 2012 hearing after a public hearing and minutes stating reasons about size/shape and vertical expansion; record showed no formal collective statement of reasons.
- Plaintiff Verrillo appealed, arguing lack of unique hardship, improper reasons, and misalignment with the comprehensive plan; Superior Court sustained the appeal.
- Court reviewed whether board rendered a formal official statement of reasons, whether hardship was unique, whether the Adolphson exception applied, and whether variances align with the comprehensive plan; the court held in favor of Verrillo, affirming the Superior Court decision.
- Record lacked proper basis for hardship and for harmony with the comprehensive plan; court rejected arguments that partial de minimis variances or personal desire to modernize justified relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board issued a formal collective statement of reasons | Verrillo contends no collective basis was stated | Board minutes contained reasons in deliberations | Yes, the board failed to provide an official collective statement of reasons |
| Whether hardship was peculiarly affecting the property | Hardship was unique to the parcel due to size/shape | Hardship was not unique; similar small lots exist in the district | Hardship not shown to be peculiar to the property |
| Whether expansion of a legally nonconforming structure is allowed | Expansion reduces nonconformity via Adolphson exception | Regulations prohibit enlargement of nonconformities; expansion increases nonconformity | Adolphson exception not applicable; expansion not permitted |
| Whether variances would harmonize with the comprehensive zoning plan | Granting variances would preserve reasonable use of property | Expanding nonconformity conflicts with comprehensive plan | Not harmonious; variances not in harmony with plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 233 Conn. 198 (Conn. 1995) (hardship must be proven; nonconforming use not to be expanded)
- Moon v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 291 Conn. 16 (Conn. 2009) (personal inconvenience not hardship; strict hardship standard remains)
- Rural Water Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 287 Conn. 282 (Conn. 2008) (financial disadvantage alone not hardship; must show denial of reasonable use)
- Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 703 (Conn. 1988) (narrow Adolphson exception: decrease nonconformity by relief may justify variance)
- Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 281 Conn. 553 (Conn. 2007) (reduction of nonconforming use to a less offensive use may justify variance)
- Ward v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 141 (Conn. 1965) (hardship must be unusual/peculiar to the property; not general to district)