Opinion ID: 781619
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Action of the ZBA

Text: 83 Motiva's contention that the district court should have deferred to the decision of the ZBA that Ceraso violated the Town Regulation is meritless. The Regulation states that no more than five (5) motor vehicles awaiting repair work or having been repaired are to be stored or parked on the lot out-of-doors, without being screened. Town Zoning Regulations § 27.4.8.5 (emphasis added). The Revocation Application filed by Marsala in October 2000 for revocation of Ceraso's special exception permit, although quoting the Regulation, alleged as facts the following: 84 In December of 1999, I issued Mr. Ceraso an Order to Comply with § 27.4.8.5. Specifically, Mr. Ceraso was to reduce the number of unscreened vehicles on the property to five or fewer. He has failed to comply with my Order.... 85 .... Because Mr. Ceraso has been in violation of § 27.4.8.5 of the Regulations, the Commission has the authority to revoke his Special Exception.... 86 For the above reasons, in my capacity as Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town of Fairfield, I respectfully request that Mr. Ceraso's Special Exception certificate for approval to use the location at the above property be revoked by this Board. 87 (Attachment to Revocation Application at 1-2.) The application contained no allegations as to how many cars were on the premises awaiting repair or having been repaired. Thus, the application did not allege a violation of the Regulation as written. 88 The ZBA voted to grant Marsala's application without making any findings. Given that the ZBA made no findings and gave no express instructions, its decision apparently contemplated that in order to avoid loss of his permit, Ceraso must reduce to no more than five the total number of unscreened vehicles on the property — regardless of whether they had been or were to be repaired. Accordingly, the ZBA imposed on Ceraso an obligation different from that on the face of the Regulation. 89 Generally, it is the function of a zoning board or commission to decide within prescribed limits and consistent with the exercise of [its] legal discretion, whether a particular section of the zoning regulations applies to a given situation and the manner in which it does apply. Double I Limited Partnership v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 218 Conn. 65, 72, 588 A.2d 624, 628 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). The board's action is subject to review by the courts only to determine whether it was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal. Id. Here, the ZBA's decision was subject to review in state court, and Ceraso had indeed appealed that decision. No definitive state-court ruling on the ZBA's interpretation was ever forthcoming, however, because Ceraso and the Town agreed to a settlement that did not involve revocation of his permit. 90 The district court found that the ZBA action cannot be said to prove a violation of the strict wording of the regulation because [t]he terminology in the [Revocation A]pplication does not state a violation of, or noncompliance with, the actual wording of the Regulation. Posttrial Decision at 7, 6. In light of the disparity between the language of the Regulation and the allegations of the application, and in light of the absence of any findings by the ZBA, we see no error in the district court's treatment of the ZBA's decision as a less-than-reasonable interpretation of the Regulation. The district court properly rejected Motiva's contention that it should rule that Ceraso had violated the Regulation simply on the basis of the ZBA decision. 91