Opinion ID: 1897045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the proposed supermarket is a food shops, retail use

Text: Finally, we address the defendants' claim that the trial court improperly concluded that a Super Stop & Shop does not fall within the ambit of the Food Shops, Retail classification contained within the city zoning regulations. The defendants argue that because the proposed supermarket will contain a bakery, a pharmacy and a bank, it should not be classified as `Food Shop[s], Retail' but rather as a `Department Store,' `Shopping Center' or `Retail Store, Discount,' which are not permitted uses on the Cytec property, which is zoned as light industrial. We disagree. We note at the outset that the record is not clear about whether the board ever decided the Food Shops, Retail issue. Although the issue was raised in the testimony before the board at the public hearing, it was not mentioned by the board members in their remarks before their vote on the residents' appeal of the issuance of the permit. The trial court acknowledged this situation by stating that [t]he record clearly shows that the subject [Super] Stop & Shop meets the classification of `Food Shops, Retail' as set forth in the zoning regulations. . . . Any determination by the [board] to the contrary is not supported by the record. Ordinarily, this court will not address issues that were not the subject of an administrative decision. Because it is unclear, however, whether the board based its decision in part on the Food Shops, Retail issue, the trial court did rule on the issue and, if left undecided, the issue may be the subject of a subsequent appeal by the defendants regarding the same development, we will consider the merits of the defendants' claim, based on the assumption that the board determined that the plaintiffs' development was not a permitted use for the Cytec property under the zoning regulations. Before addressing the merits of this claim, we set forth the standards that govern our review. Resolution of this issue requires us to review the relevant town regulations. 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 in this case, the relevant zoning regulation] as applied to the facts of the case, including the question of whether the language does so apply. . . . In the present case, that process requires us to examine the language of the regulation. . . . (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Graff v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 277 Conn. 645, 652-53, 894 A.2d 285 (2006). With these principles in mind, we now turn to the defendants' claim that the proposed supermarket is not a permitted use on the Cytec property because it does not fall within the ambit of the Food Shops, Retail classification. It is undisputed that the Cytec property is in an M-L zone, and that Food Shops, Retail are permitted on property that is located in such a zone. Stamford Zoning Regs., Appendix A, Land Use Schedule. It is also undisputed that the Cytec property may be put to multiple uses and contain multiple buildings as of right under its zoning classification. The zoning regulations, however, do not define Food Shops, Retail, so the question of whether the proposed Super Stop & Shop constitutes a permitted use cannot be solved simply by analyzing the language of the regulations. See Graff v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 277 Conn. at 653 and n. 5, 894 A.2d 285 (using extratextual sources that provide guidance as to the regulation's scope because regulation is not plain and unambiguous). The proposed Super Stop & Shop will be an 82,880 square foot one-story building. As part of the zoning permit application process, the plaintiffs provided detailed information regarding the areas of the store that would be used for food, storage, store operations, nonfood, utility, a bank and a pharmacy. The plaintiffs produced evidence during the permit application process and before the board that demonstrated that over 90 percent of the proposed development will be dedicated to the intended main use for the facility, which is Food Shops, Retail, while less than 7 percent of the store will be devoted to certain accessory uses . . . that are customarily incidental to the main use. The plaintiffs also documented in detail the breakdown of the nonfood products that would be sold by the supermarket, by linear and cubic shelf footage and by percentage of the store's expected sales. The zoning enforcement officer testified before the board that: I had them document more than anybody probably in history ever had to document what they're going to have on their shelves, cubic values of how much space is going to be used for nonfood items. That supermarket, that food shop retail complies in every, way, shape to zoning. He also testified that the definition we have for food shop retail is pretty much one that doesn't exist with the exception of what we have for past practice, which is grocery store supermarket, the Grade A, ShopRite, Stop & Shop. They're all food shop retails. In the absence of a definition for Food Shops, Retail, the pattern of past practice is strong evidence that the proposed Super Stop & Shop is a permitted use on the Cytec property. [A]lthough this court is not bound by a zoning board's interpretation of its regulations, a board's reasonable, time-tested interpretation is given great weight. Jalowiec Realty Associates, L.P. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 278 Conn. 408, 414, 898 A.2d 157 (2006). Any decision to the contrary by the board was not supported by the evidence that was before it. We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs' development was properly classified as Food Shops, Retail. [17] The judgment is affirmed.