Anatra v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of The Town of Madison.
Decision Date | 08 March 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 31499.,31499. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Victor ANATRA et al.v.ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF MADISON. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Benson A. Snaider, New Haven, with whom was Glenn E. Coe, Hartford, for the appellants (plaintiffs).Michael A. Zizka, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Loni S. Gardner, for the appellee (defendant).GRUENDEL, LAVINE and BEAR, Js.BEAR, J.
The plaintiffs, Victor Anatra and Heather Anatra, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their appeal from the decision of the defendant, the zoning board of appeals (board) of the town of Madison (town). The board had upheld the decision of the town's zoning enforcement officer (zoning officer), denying the plaintiffs' application for a certificate of zoning compliance, which was necessary to secure a building permit to construct an uncovered deck on their property located at 71 Oak Avenue in Madison. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly dismissed their appeal after concluding that they were not entitled to the certificate of zoning compliance because they needed a variance modification to build the deck. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The court found the following facts, which are uncontested and relevant to our discussion of the plaintiffs' appeal. “On October 5, 2001, the [plaintiffs] applied for a variance to the [board] to replace the then-existing house on the footprint of that prior structure. The prior structure was a much aged cottage. The proposed structure was a modern, multistory home. The [plaintiffs'] application requested variances for front yard and side yard setbacks, additional maximum building coverage, and [c]ritical [c]oastal [r]esource setback. Detailed plans were submitted with the application. The application stipulated, immediately above the signature line, that ‘THE PLANS SUBMITTED WITH THE BUILDING APPLICATION MUST BE THE SAME AS THOSE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED WITH YOUR VARIANCE APPLICATION.’ (Emphasis in original.)
“On January 4, 2002, the [board] considered the application. The [plaintiffs'] architect, Robert Mangino, presented a floor plan and a model of the proposed house to the [board]. The minutes of the meeting state that Mangino ‘referred to the model and said the house will not change from the model, although there may be a change in the windows.’ Neither the application nor the model included a deck extending beyond the footprint of the house. The [board] approved the application. The [plaintiffs] subsequently built a new structure, conforming with the submitted plans and model, on the site.
“On July 27, 2006, [t]he [plaintiffs] filed an application for ‘variance modification’ to ‘add [nine feet] to existing balcony in rear of house—[nine feet by twenty feet].’ The existing balcony—which appears to be within the footprint of the existing structure—was stated to be ‘[three feet by twenty—two feet].’ The proposed addition extended beyond that footprint. On September 5, 2006, the [board] denied the application. The [plaintiffs] did not appeal [that] decision.
“On December 19, 2007, the [plaintiffs] decided to try again. This time, instead of requesting another ‘variance modification,’ they submitted an application for a building permit to the [zoning officer]. A drawing attached to the application shows a ‘proposed deck’ [thirty-two] feet long and [seven] feet wide for [twenty] feet of the total length, expanding to [ten] feet wide in the last [twelve] feet of length. A ‘privacy wall’ was to be built at the narrow end of the deck. The ‘proposed deck’ and ‘privacy wall’ extend beyond the footprint of the existing structure.
“On January 3, 2008, the [zoning officer] denied the application. His denial states that, ‘[p]rior variances for this building were granted by the [board] based on specific plans and representations for the building. The variances are effective for that building only. Any modification to the building must be approved by the [board].
Following the May 12, 2009 hearing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, concluding that the board had acted properly in upholding the decision of the zoning officer, which denied to the plaintiffs a certificate of zoning compliance to enable them to secure a building permit to construct the proposed uncovered deck. This appeal followed.1
On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly dismissed their appeal, thereby affirming the board's decision to uphold the zoning officer's decision not to issue a certificate of zoning compliance on the ground that the plaintiffs needed to modify their variance to build an uncovered deck on their property. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the proposed uncovered deck fully complies with the zoning regulations and that it does not intrude into any setback area. (DB 1–2) They further argue that the proposed uncovered deck does not increase the coverage area of their building because an uncovered deck specifically is excluded from the calculation of building coverage area pursuant to § 19.5.1 of the Madison zoning regulations. We agree.
As a preliminary matter, we set forth the relevant legal principles and our standard of review, which guide us in our resolution of the plaintiffs' appeal. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Goulet v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 117 Conn.App. 333, 343, 978 A.2d 1160, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 909, 982 A.2d 1082 (2009). Our Supreme Court has explained that (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Heim v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 289 Conn. 709, 715, 960 A.2d 1018 (2008).
The plaintiffs argue that the proposed uncovered deck fully complies with the town's zoning regulations, that it does not intrude into any setback area and that it does not increase the coverage area of their building. They explain that pursuant to § 19.5.1, the proposed uncovered deck specifically is excluded when calculating building coverage area under the zoning regulations and, therefore, that they should have been given their certificate of zoning compliance.2 They also argue that the board did not have the authority to “monitor and approve modifications to the structure [that] did not affect aspects of the structure for which variances had been granted.” The defendant does not contest that the plaintiffs' proposed deck would comply fully with the regulations. The defendant argues, however, that “the plaintiffs were bound by their variance application representations and plans and the conditions of approval contained in the 2001 certificate of variance.” We conclude that the plaintiffs did not need a new or modified variance to build their proposed deck, which fully complied with the zoning regulations and was not prohibited by any condition attached to the certificates of variances previously granted.
The following additional facts are relevant to our discussion. The plaintiffs applied to the board for a variance to enable them to tear down and to reconstruct their nonconforming cottage. The cottage, which had existed before the zoning regulations were enacted, was located on an undersized lot, and it did not conform to side yard or front yard setbacks, nor did it meet the regulations regarding maximum permissible area coverage. The board granted the plaintiffs' application and issued a certificate of variance on December 4, 2001. The certificate of variance stated in relevant part that it “certifie[d] that on [December 4, 2001] a variance was granted to [the plaintiffs] ... by the [board] to vary the application of [§§] 2.1.7 and 3.6 (d & f) of the [z]oning [r]egulations....” The certificate also set forth the exact nature of the variance granted: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of The Town of Ridgefield., 32105.
...200 Associates, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, at 174, 851 A.2d 1175. As we explained in Anatra v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 127 Conn.App. 125, 133–34, 14 A.3d 386, cert. granted, 301 Conn. 902, 17 A.3d 1043 (2011): “Clearly, under our law, the board ha[s] the authority to attac......
-
New England Prayer Center, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission of Town of Easton
... ... of Approval." (ROR, Exh. 56.) The plaintiff now appeals ... the commission's decision, challenging five of the ... commission's special ... required of the permit holder." (Internal quotation ... marks omitted.) Anatra v. Zoning Board of Appeals, ... 127 Conn.App. 125, 135-36, 14 A.3d 386 (2011) ... event. Many of the main events that I have gone to have also ... been at Madison Square Garden, so I have ... concerns when I ... hear things like worst case scenario and ... ...
-
Komondy v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of The Town of Chester.
...themselves with the nicety of a Philadelphia lawyer.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Anatra v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 127 Conn.App. 125, 145, 14 A.3d 386 (2011) ( Gruendel, J., concurring). Similarly, our Supreme Court has explained that the procedural right involved in such administ......
-
Global Companies, LLC v. Clinton Planning & Zoning Commission
... ... plaintiff, Global Companies LLC (Global), [ 1 ] appeals from ... an August 11, 2014 decision of the defendant, the Clinton ... the zoning regulations of the town of Clinton (regulations), ... a propane storage facility is allowed ... omitted.) Anatra v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 127 ... Conn.App. 125, 145, 14 A.3d 386 ... Madison, objected to the proposal at the public hearing ... (ROR, Item ... ...