Source: http://ct.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191105_0001386.CT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-30 12:47:16
Document Index: 291735909

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 6', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 6', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 7', '§ 10', '§ 7', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10']

FindACase™ | Mayer-Wittmann v. Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Stamford
Mayer-Wittmann v. Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Stamford
KARL MAYER-WITTMANN, EXECUTOR (ESTATE OFGERDA MAYER-WITTMANN)
Appeal from the decision of the named defendant granting the application for variances filed by the defendant Paul E. Breunich, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk and tried to the court, Hon. Edward R. Karazin, judge trial referee, who, exercising the powers of the Superior Court, rendered judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed.
Scott T. Garosshen, with whom were Brendon P. Levesque and, on the brief, William I. Haslun II, for the appellant (plaintiff).
James V. Minor, special corporation counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Kathryn Emmett, director of legal affairs, for the appellee (named defendant).
Peter M. Nolin, with whom were Jacqueline O. Kaufman and, on the brief, Timothy A. Smith, for the appellee (defendant Paul E. Breunich).
Robinson, C. J., and D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Vertefeuille, Js. [*]
The issue that we must decide in this appeal is whether the named defendant, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Stamford (zoning board), properly granted the application of the defendant Paul E. Breunich for variances to reconstruct a legally nonconforming accessory structure on his property after it was severely damaged by a hurricane. Breunich sought variances from various setback requirements and height restrictions of the Stamford zoning regulations on the ground that, as applied to his property, their strict enforcement would impose an unusual hardship because he could not comply both with those regulations and with the regulations applicable to flood prone areas, which required him to elevate the structure. The Planning Board of the City of Stamford (planning board) unanimously recommended approval of the application, and, after a hearing, the zoning board unanimously approved it. The plaintiff, Karl Mayer-Wittmann, executor of the estate of Gerda Mayer-Wittmann, who owns property adjacent to Breunich's property, appealed from the decision of the zoning board to the trial court, which, after a trial, dismissed the appeal. This appeal followed.[1] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following facts that were found by the trial court or that are undisputed. Breunich owns a 0.96 acre beach front property located at 106 Carter Drive in Stamford. The property, which includes three dwelling structures with a total of five dwelling units, two sheds and a garage, is located within the R-10 single family district, low density zone. Breunich's property is nonconforming to the Zoning Regulations of the city of Stamford (regulations)[2] but, because the property's structures, including the structure the parties refer to as the ‘‘sea cottage, '' were built before the zoning regulations were adopted in 1951, they are legally authorized nonconforming structures under the regulations. See Stamford Zoning Regs., art. IV, § 10 (A) (2015); see also General Statutes § 8-2 (a)[3] (zoning ‘‘regulations shall not prohibit the continuance of any nonconforming use, building or structure existing at the time of the adoption of such regulations''). The sea cottage, the building at issue in the present case, is an accessory structure containing a single dwelling unit that is nonconforming in several respects. Specifically, the sea cottage is located twenty-three feet from the rear yard property line, in violation of the thirty foot minimum required by article III, § 4 (AA) (2.4) (e), of the regulations, and it is located four feet, six inches from the side yard property line, in violation of the ten foot minimum required by article III, § 4 (AA) (2.4) (e). In addition, the lowest horizontal structural member of the sea cottage has an elevation of 8.7 feet, although the minimum elevation standard for the structure is sixteen feet under the zoning regulations applicable to flood prone areas.[4] Finally, the sea cottage has a height of eighteen feet, ten inches, whereas article III, § 6 (D), of the regulations provides that detached accessory structures may not exceed fifteen feet in height.
The sea cottage was severely damaged by Hurricane Sandy in late October, 2012, and Breunich wishes to rebuild it. Because the cost of repairs exceeds 50 percent of the sea cottage's value, however, the zoning board and Breunich agree that the sea cottage must conform to certain current regulations governing flood prone areas, including the minimum elevation requirement, notwithstanding the fact that the sea cottage is a legally nonconforming structure. See Stamford Zoning Regs., art. III, § 7.1 (B) (43) (2015) (for purposes of zoning regulations governing flood prone areas, ‘‘[s]ubstantial [d]amage'' is defined as ‘‘damage . . . sustained by a structure, whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its pre-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred''); id., art. III, § 7.1 (B) (44) (defining ‘‘[s]ubstantial [i]mprovement'' to include repairs ‘‘the cumulative cost of which equals or exceeds [50] percent . . . of the market value'' of structure); id., art. III, § 7.1 (D) (1) (requiring substantial improvements to comply with certain regulations governing flood prone areas); id. (requiring all substantial improvements within special flood hazard area to have lowest floor elevated to minimum elevation standard).[5]
As we indicated, under the regulations applicable to flood prone areas, the minimum flood elevation requirement for the lowest horizontal structural member of the sea cottage is sixteen feet above the base flood elevation, whereas the maximum height allowed in the R-10 zone for accessory structures is fifteen feet. See id., art. III, §§ 6 (D) and 7.1. Because the lowest horizontal structural member of the sea cottage, which is at ground level, is currently 8.7 feet above base flood elevation, elevating the sea cottage by 7.3 feet to satisfy the minimum flood elevation requirement would leave only 7.7 feet of buildable vertical space if the structure also were required to conform to the building height requirement. Accordingly, it would be impossible for the sea cottage to conform to both requirements. Moreover, because the soils on which the sea cottage is currently standing cannot support the foundation that would be required to elevate the sea cottage to the minimum flood elevation, restoration of the sea cottage requires moving it three feet to the north. Accordingly, Breunich applied for variances from the building height and setback requirements of the regulations.
The planning board unanimously recommended that the zoning board approve Breunich's application for variances. After a hearing at which both Breunich and a representative of the plaintiff appeared, the zoning board granted Breunich's application subject to certain restrictions that are not at issue in this appeal. The plaintiff then appealed to the trial court, claiming, inter alia, that the zoning board improperly granted the variances because Breunich had not established that, without them, he would be deprived of the reasonable use of his property, as is required to establish a hardship, or that the variances were the minimum relief necessary. In addition, the plaintiff claimed that any hardship was ‘‘personal and self-inflicted'' because Breunich failed to rebuild the sea cottage within twelve months of the hurricane. Specifically, he contended that Breunich could have rebuilt the sea cottage pursuant to article IV, § 10 (C), of the regulations, [6] which authorizes the owner of a nonconforming building that has been damaged by flood or other calamity to reconstruct and use the building as before within twelve months of the damage, and that his failure to do so terminated the legal nonconforming status of the sea cottage on October 29, 2013, one year after it was damaged in the hurricane.
The trial court concluded that the zoning board's determinations that the regulations applicable to flood prone areas imposed a hardship on Breunich that justified granting the variances and that the variances were the minimal relief required to alleviate the hardship were supported by the record. The court also agreed with Breunich's claim that the zoning board could have granted the variances on the ground that the variances reduced the sea cottage's nonconformities. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
On appeal to this court, the plaintiff renews his claims that the zoning board improperly granted the variances because Breunich had not established a hardship by showing that enforcement of the regulations would deprive him of all reasonable use of his property or render his lot completely unusable, and the variances were not the minimal relief required to alleviate any hardship. In addition, the plaintiff again contends that Breunich is barred by article IV, § 10 (C), of the regulations from rebuilding the sea cottage because its legally nonconforming status has terminated. We conclude that the sea cottage retains its status as a legally nonconforming accessory structure and that the zoning board properly granted the variances on the ground that the enforcement of the regulations would create a hardship.
Because the question of whether the sea cottage retains its status as a legally nonconforming structure has bearing on the question of whether the zoning board properly granted the variances, we first address the plaintiff's contention that that status terminated one year after the sea cottage was damaged by the hurricane pursuant to article IV, § 10 (C), of the regulations. The defendants contend that that provision does not apply to the sea cottage because the ‘‘fundamental predicate'' that it was possible, as a matter of law, for the sea cottage to be ‘‘reconstructed and used as before'' it was damaged; see Stamford Zoning Regs., art. IV, § 10 (C) (2015); without any need to apply for variances, has not been met.[7] We agree with the defendants.
‘‘Because the interpretation of the regulations presents a question of law, our review is plenary. . . . Additionally, zoning regulations are local legislative enactments . . . and, therefore, their interpretation is governed by the same principles that apply to the construction of statutes. . . . Moreover, regulations must be interpreted in accordance with the principle that a reasonable and rational result was intended . . . . The process of statutory interpretation involves the determination of the meaning of the statutory language [or the relevant zoning regulation] as applied to the facts of the case, including the question of whether the language does so apply.'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Graff v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 277 Conn. 645, 652, 894 A.2d 285 (2006).
We begin our analysis with the language of article IV, § 10 (C), of the Stamford Zoning Regulations: ‘‘Any non-conforming building . . . which has been or may be damaged by . . . flood . . . [or] act of God . . . may be reconstructed and used as before, if reconstruction is started [within] twelve . . . months of such calamity . . . .'' Thus, the regulation provides that, when a building has been damaged in a ‘‘calamity'' and the owner commences reconstruction within twelve months, the building retains its nonconforming status, and the owner is not required to conform the reconstructed building to current regulations or to seek variances from those regulations.
In the present case, the defendants contend that Breunich could not have reconstructed the sea cottage and used it ‘‘as before'' because the cost of the repairs to the sea cottage exceeds 50 percent of its value and, therefore, the sea cottage is required to conform to the minimum flood elevation requirement of the regulations applicable to flood prone areas.[8] In other words, the defendants appear to contend that, notwithstanding article IV, § 10 (C), of the regulations, which authorizes landowners to reconstruct a damaged nonconforming building ‘‘as before'' within twelve months of the calamity in which it was damaged, because the cost of repairs exceeds 50 percent of the sea cottage's value, the sea cottage is now categorically required to conform to the minimum flood elevation requirement. The plaintiff contends that, to the contrary, nothing in the regulations applicable to flood prone areas indicates that they are ‘‘preeminent among all the zoning regulations . . . .'' Accordingly, the plaintiff contends, Breunich could have reconstructed the sea cottage ‘‘as before'' pursuant to article IV, § 10 (C), of the regulations, if he had commenced construction within twelve months of the hurricane, and his failure to do so terminated the legally nonconforming status of the sea cottage in its entirety.
With respect to the defendants' contention that an owner of a damaged, legally nonconforming building must comply with the minimum flood elevation requirement when the cost of reconstructing the building exceeds 50 percent of the building's value, we agree that, unlike other regulations, such as those governing building height and setbacks, the minimum flood elevation requirement applies to the reconstruction of the damaged building under these circumstances. In other words, the building's legally nonconforming status with respect to that requirement was lost because the cost of repairs exceeds 50 percent of the building's value. Indeed, the requirement that a damaged building must be repaired in conformance with the minimum elevation requirement if the cost of repairs exceeds 50 percent of the value of the building can apply only to buildings that were in existence before the regulations applicable to flood prone areas were adopted, because buildings that were built and damaged after their adoption would already conform to the regulations, unless the owner obtained a variance.
In this regard, it is important to recognize that, unlike regulations governing setbacks, building height and property use, which are designed to address concerns that are largely aesthetic in nature, the minimum flood elevation requirements are intended to ‘‘promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public, [to] limit public and private property losses and diminish expenditures of public money for costly flood protection projects and relief efforts, and [to] minimize prolonged governmental and business interruptions.'' Stamford Zoning Regs., art. III, § 7.1 (A) (2015).
The authors of a white paper published by the Center for Energy & Environmental Law at the University of Connecticut School of Law aptly describe the scope of the problems that the zoning regulations applicable to flood prone areas were designed to address and the crucial role that such regulations play. The white paper states that ‘‘[c]oastal flooding represents a tremendous threat to Connecticut infrastructure. The Federal Emergency Management Administration . . . estimates that a ‘100 year flood' in the four Connecticut [s]horeline counties could cause a staggering $3, 571, 200, 000 in damage to residential structures alone. To further exacerbate this problem, climate scientists estimate that by 2100 the inundation levels of this 100 year flood will revisit the Connecticut coast once every seventeen years if greenhouse gas emissions continue at current rates.
‘‘The National Flood Insurance Program . . . offsets some of the financial risk that these floods pose to homeowners. This program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . makes federal flood insurance available to communities that impose a minimum standard of floodplain management regulation, generally imposed through zoning ordinances. Every Connecticut municipality participates in the [program].
‘‘Under the [program], participating municipalities must create land use ordinances that require habitable portions of new or substantially improved residential structures within the Special Flood Hazard Area to be elevated to or above the Base Flood Elevation . . . shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps . . . . This elevation requirement is intended to minimize flood damage by keeping buildings above anticipated flood levels.'' (Emphasis added; footnotes omitted.) W. Rath et al., ‘‘Height Restrictions on Elevated Residential Buildings in Connecticut Coastal Floodplains, '' Municipal Resilience Planning Assistance Project: Law & Policy White Paper Series (2018) p. 2, available at https://circa.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1618/ 2018/03/Height-Restrictions-on-Elevated-Buildings.pdf (last visited October 30, 2019). At oral argument before this court, counsel for the zoning board represented that the failure of a municipality to create such ordinances or to enforce them in a uniform manner could render not only the particular nonconforming property ineligible to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, but also could render properties located throughout the entire municipality ineligible for the program. Thus, municipalities have a compelling interest in ensuring uniform compliance with such regulations.
We conclude, therefore, that, when a legally nonconforming building subject to the regulations applicable to flood prone areas is damaged and the cost of repairs exceeds 50 percent of the value of the building, the minimum flood elevation requirement applies to the repair of the building, notwithstanding the fact that the building previously had a legally nonconforming status with respect to that requirement, and notwithstanding article IV, § 10 (C), of the regulations, which authorizes the reconstruction ‘‘as before'' of buildings damaged in a ‘‘calamity'' within twelve months of the calamity.
Contrary to Breunich's apparent contention, however, conformance with the minimum flood elevation requirement is not categorically required under these circumstances. Rather, article III, § 7.1 (F), of the regulations, expressly authorizes the zoning board to issue variances from the regulations applicable to flood zone areas. Thus, the plaintiff is correct that Breunich potentially could have restored the sea cottage to its former state. He could have done so, however, only if he obtained a variance from the minimum flood elevation requirement.[9]
As we have indicated, the purpose of article IV, § 10 (C), of the regulations is to allow landowners to rebuild legally nonconforming buildings that have been dam- aged in a calamity without the need either to conform the building to the regulations or to seek a variance authorizing the nonconformity. We conclude, therefore, that article IV, § 10 (C), of the regulations does not apply to the sea cottage because it would have been impossible for Breunich to reconstruct the building ‘‘as before'' without either conforming to the minimum elevation requirement or seeking a variance from the regulation. Indeed, the relatively short time frame referenced in the regulation clearly contemplates the situation in which the landowner will not be required either to completely redesign the building to conform to new regulations or to go through the lengthy administrative process for obtaining a variance from those regulations in order to secure a building permit.[10] See W. Rath et al., supra, p. 3 (‘‘the variance process is time consuming and can be expensive as it requires an individual analysis, a detailed application, and a formal public hearing'').
The plaintiff suggests, however, that the continued existence of a legally nonconforming structure and the need for variances are mutually exclusive concepts. In other words, if variances are required to authorize the construction or repair of a building to its former state, the building cannot be legally nonconforming. Accordingly, he contends that, if Breunich was required either to conform the sea cottage to the minimum elevation requirement of the regulations applicable to flood prone areas or to seek a variance from that requirement, it necessarily follows that the sea cottage entirely lost its legally nonconforming status.
We disagree. As we explain in part II of this opinion, a regulation that entirely deprived a building of its legally nonconforming status might be confiscatory as applied and, as such, of questionable constitutionality.[11] It is well settled that ‘‘[t]his court has a duty to construe statutes, whenever possible, to avoid constitutional infirmities . . . .'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Honulik v. Greenwich, 293 Conn. 641, 647, 980 A.2d 845 (2009); see also Graff v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 277 Conn. 652 (interpretation of zoning regulations ‘‘is governed by the same principles that apply to the construction of statutes'' [internal quotation marks omitted]). We conclude, therefore, that the purpose of the regulations prohibiting the reconstruction of a building that is nonconforming with the minimum flood elevation requirement to its previous state if the cost of repairs exceeds 50 percent of the value of the building was not to deprive legally nonconforming buildings entirely of their legally nonconforming status but to ensure the maximum possible compliance with the regulations applicable to flood prone areas. In other words, if a building is legally nonconforming with regulations such as setback requirements, and the building is damaged by flood or calamity, the fact that the building cannot be reconstructed without either complying with the minimum flood elevation requirement or obtaining a variance from that requirement or by obtaining a variance from the height restriction does not mean that the reconstructed building must also comply with all other regulations with which it was previously noncon-forming. Accordingly, we conclude that the sea cottage retained its status as a legally nonconforming accessory structure with respect to the setback and building height requirements of the regulations.
Having concluded that the legally nonconforming status of the sea cottage was not terminated by article IV, § 10 (C), of the regulations, we next address the plaintiff's claims that the zoning board improperly granted Breunich's application for variances because he did not establish a hardship and that, even if he did, the variances were not the minimum relief required to alleviate the hardship. We disagree.
‘‘The standard of review on appeal from a zoning board's decision to grant or deny a variance is well established. We must determine whether the trial court correctly concluded that the board's act was not arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion. . . . Courts are not to substitute their judgment for that of the board . . . and decisions of local boards will not be disturbed so long as honest judgment has been reasonably and fairly exercised after a full hearing. . . . Upon appeal, the trial court reviews the record before the board to determine whether it has acted fairly or with proper motives or upon valid reasons. . . . We, in turn, review the action of the trial court. . . . The burden of proof to demonstrate that the board acted improperly is upon the [plaintiff].'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 233 Conn. 198, 205-206, 658 A.2d 559 (1995); see also Richardson v. Zoning Commission, 107 Conn.App. 36, 42, 944 A.2d 360 (2008) (‘‘[t]rial courts defer to zoning boards and should not disturb their decisions so long as honest judgment has been reasonably and fairly exercised after a full hearing'' [internal quotation marks omitted]). ‘‘Because the plaintiffs' appeal to the trial court is based solely on the record, the scope of the trial court's review of the board's decision and the scope of our review of that decision are the same.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) E & F Associates, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 320 Conn. 9, 14, 127 A.3d 986 (2015).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lsquo;&lsquo;A variance constitutes permission to act in a manner that is otherwise prohibited under the zoning law of the town. . . . It is well established, however, that the granting of a variance must be reserved for unusual or exceptional circumstances. . . . An applicant for a variance must show that, because of some peculiar characteristic of his property, the strict application of the zoning regulation produces an unusual hardship, as opposed to the general impact which the regulation has on other properties in the zone. . . . Accordingly, we have [concluded that a zoning board of appeals may] grant a variance only when two basic requirements are satisfied: (1) the variance must be shown not to affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning plan. . . . Proof of exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship is absolutely necessary as a condition precedent to the granting of a zoning variance.&#39;&#39; (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 15. Zoning boards of appeals are authorized to grant variances in cases in which ...