139 Conn. App. 748
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Woodbury Donuts, LLC and EYRE, LLC appealed a trial court judgment dismissing their administrative appeal of the zoning board of appeals’ decision denying a Dunkin Donuts zoning permit.
- The board upheld the zoning enforcement officer’s denial, finding the proposed fast food use impermissibly expanded a preexisting nonconforming use.
- Corey’s restaurant on the EYRE site was a preexisting, legal nonconforming seasonal fast food use; the 2006 special permit relocated that use within the lot.
- EYRE owned property at 787-807 Main Street South in Woodbury’s Middle Quarter District; Corey’s operated seasonally there from 1995/1996 until 2006.
- Woodbury Donuts sought to open a year‑round Dunkin Donuts at the Corey’s site; the 2008 application described year‑round operation and certain staffing and hours.
- The trial court concluded Corey’s use was nonconforming, and that the Dunkin Donuts plan would impermissibly expand that nonconforming use; the court also addressed municipal estoppel and allowed limited evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is substantial evidence that year‑round Dunkin would expand a nonconforming use | Donuts/Eyre claim the 2006 permit authorized a fast food use and that the Dunkin proposal is a continuation, not an expansion | Board held the Dunkin proposal changes the use’s character and expands the nonconforming use | Affirmed; substantial evidence supports expansion finding |
| Whether municipal estoppel bars the board’s current action | Donuts/Eyre relied on the 2006 permit and incurred costs to construct for a Dunkin site | Board argues estoppel applies only to preclusion of preexisting nonconforming use, not to the current application | Affirmed; estoppel not established for the current application |
Key Cases Cited
- Caserta v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 226 Conn. 80 (Conn. 1993) (must focus on board decision, de novo review of record)
- Mountain Brook Assn., Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 133 Conn. App. 359 (Conn. App. 2012) (liberal discretion; substantial evidence standard)
- Wing v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 61 Conn. App. 639 (Conn. App. 2001) (substantial evidence standard; deference to board findings)
- Walgreen Eastern Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 130 Conn. App. 422 (Conn. App. 2011) (substantial evidence; review of board decisions)
- Helbig v. Zoning Commission, 185 Conn. 294 (Conn. 1981) (nonconforming use retention vs. expansion policy)
- Helicopter Associates, Inc. v. Stamford, 201 Conn. 700 (Conn. 1987) (extension of nonconforming use; change in character constitutes expansion)
- Planning & Zoning Commission v. Craft, 12 Conn. App. 90 (Conn. App. 1987) (extension of nonconforming use; annual duration changes matter)
- Cummings v. Tripp, 204 Conn. 67 (Conn. 1987) (renovation/year-round rental as substantial departure from nonconforming use)
- Beerwort v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 144 Conn. 731 (Conn. 1958) (extension of nonconforming use to year-round operation at issue)