Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Decision Date02 January 2001
Docket Number(SC 16208)
Citation763 A.2d 1011,255 Conn. 143
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSEBASTIAN GANGEMI ET AL. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD

McDonald, C.J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Sullivan and Vertefeuille, Js.1 John E. Curran, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Richard H. Saxl, for the appellee (defendant).

John F. Fallon, for the appellees (intervening defendants).

Opinion

BORDEN, J.

The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether the continued maintenance of a certain "no rental" condition imposed on a zoning variance granted to the plaintiffs in 1986 by the defendant, the zoning board of appeals of the town of Fairfield (board), which the plaintiffs did not challenge by direct appeal at that time, violates the public policy against restraints against alienation of property. The plaintiffs, Sebastian Gangemi and Rebecca J. Gangemi, appeal, pursuant to our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal from the defendant's denial of their application to invalidate the no rental condition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly dismissed their appeal because the continued maintenance of the condition violates the strong public policy against restraints on the alienation of property.3 We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

In 1986, the plaintiffs secured a zoning variance from the board, one condition of which was "[o]wner occupancy only."4 In 1996, the Fairfield zoning enforcement officer determined that the plaintiffs were violating the condition by renting their property, and he ordered them to comply with the condition. The plaintiffs applied to the board requesting that it invalidate the condition. The board denied the application. The plaintiffs appealed to the trial court, which rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment. Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 54 Conn. App. 559, 736 A.2d 167 (1999). This certified appeal followed.5

The procedural history and certain of the undisputed facts of the case are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court as follows. "[T]he plaintiffs are the owners of property located at 863 Fairfield Beach Road in Fairfield. On March 13, 1986, the plaintiffs filed an application with the board requesting a variance in the setback requirements from the Fairfield zoning regulations. The variance that the plaintiffs sought would have allowed them to enlarge their nonconforming home6 and also would have allowed them to convert the home from summer use to year-round use. The plaintiffs asserted that to complete the conversion of the home, they needed to enclose the existing porch, enlarge the bathroom and construct a furnace room. In their application, the plaintiffs indicated that they '[intended] to use the property for family use only on a year-round basis.'

"The board conducted a public hearing on the plaintiffs' application. On May 1, 1986, the board granted the plaintiffs' application subject to the following conditions: (1) the plaintiffs would provide two off-street parking spaces; and (2) the use of the home would be limited to family use and would not be used for rental purposes.7 The plaintiffs did not appeal or otherwise challenge the validity or imposition of either condition. Thereafter, in 1990, the plaintiffs moved out of the home and started renting the property to various tenants. On May 20, 1996, Peter Marsala, Fairfield's zoning enforcement officer, issued to the plaintiffs an order to comply that indicated that the plaintiffs were violating the board's conditional approval by renting the home and ordered the plaintiffs to have the tenants vacate the subject property.

"Thereafter, on June 3, 1996, the plaintiffs filed an application with the board requesting that the board invalidate the no rental condition and, thereby, reverse the order to comply. On August 1, 1996, the board conducted a public hearing and denied the plaintiffs' application.8 The plaintiffs appealed from the board's decision to the Superior Court on August 21, 1996, pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8 (b). The Superior Court concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to file an appeal challenging the validity of the no rental condition within fifteen days from the date when notice of the board's decision was published in 1986 deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the appeal." Id., 561-63.

In addition, certain other sets of facts are undisputed. The first involves the extent and context of the variance at issue as it is currently maintained. The variance permitted the plaintiffs to reduce the required side setback line from 7 feet to 3.2 feet, thus giving them an additional 3.8 feet of footprint and adding 59.6 square feet to their house. In this connection, we note that the variance also gave the plaintiffs permission to convert the house from a seasonal cottage to a year-round dwelling by enclosing the open porch and adding a one-story addition in order to enlarge the bathroom and construct a furnace room. At oral argument before this court, the parties informed us that, at the time the variance was granted, applicable zoning regulations permitted only seasonal use of the plaintiffs' property. The parties further informed us, however, that the zoning regulations have since been amended to eliminate the prior seasonal restriction, thereby permitting year-round use.9 Thus, under the current zoning regulations, the plaintiffs' house, as well as all of the other houses in the Fairfield beach district, may now be used year-round irrespective of the variance and its original conditions.

Second, the property in question is located within the Fairfield beach district, which is subject to § 11.1.1 of the Fairfield zoning regulations. Section 11.1.1 of the Fairfield zoning regulations imposes the following limitations: "A single detached dwelling for one family... [and] no dwelling or dwelling unit in the Beach District may be occupied by more than four (4) unrelated persons." Thus, there is nothing in the zoning regulations that prohibits either the plaintiffs or any other property owners in the beach district from renting their houses to others. Moreover, there is nothing in our zoning statutes that, at least specifically, permits such a flat prohibition.

The third set of facts involves the absence from the applicable zoning restrictions of any provision limiting occupancy to "families."10 The only restriction in this regard is in § 11.1.1 of the Fairfield zoning regulations that "no dwelling or dwelling unit in the Beach District may be occupied by more than four (4) unrelated persons." Thus, presumably all other property owners in the beach district are permitted, and but for the no rental condition in question the plaintiffs would be permitted, to rent their houses to four friends or, for that matter, to four individuals who do not even know one another but who are willing to share a beach rental for the summer—or even for the entire year. In fact, all the property owners in the beach district, including the plaintiffs, could legally sell their properties to four such individuals. The point is that the town has not seen fit to limit occupancy in the beach district beyond these two elements: (1) no more than four unrelated persons; and (2) occupying a single-family type structure.

With this undisputed factual background in mind, we turn to the legal standard that controls the present case. In Upjohn Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 224 Conn. 96, 102, 616 A.2d 793 (1992), we held that the plaintiff, "having secured [certain zoning] permits in 1983 subject to condition seven and not having challenged the condition by appeal at that time, was precluded from doing so in the 1986 enforcement proceedings at issue in this case." Two considerations, which are relevant to the present case,11 led to that conclusion.

First, we reasoned that the rules requiring a contemporaneous appeal from the imposition of a zoning condition, and thus depriving a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over a subsequent challenge, rest "on the need for stability in land use planning and the need for justified reliance by all interested parties—the interested property owner, any interested neighbors and the town—on the decisions of the zoning authorities." Id. Second, we noted that "there are limits to the notion that subject matter jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time"; id., 103; and that those limits applied to that case because "[t]he lack of jurisdiction, if any, was far from obvious, [the plaintiff] had the opportunity to challenge it at the time, and we perceive[d] no strong policy reasons to give [the plaintiff] a second opportunity to do so now." Id., 104.

Despite this conclusion and reasoning, however, we "recognize[d] ... that there may be exceptional cases in which a previously unchallenged condition was so far outside what could have been regarded as a valid exercise of zoning power that there could not have been any justified reliance on it, or in which the continued maintenance of a previously unchallenged condition would violate some strong public policy."12 (Emphasis added.) Id., 104-105. We conclude that, under the facts of the present case, the continued maintenance of the no rental condition violates our strong public policy against restrictions on the free alienability of property.

We begin by emphasizing that, under this prong of the Upjohn Co. formulation, we focus, not on the state of affairs that existed when the condition at issue originally was imposed, but on the current state of affairs in which the condition is being enforced. Thus, in the present case, we do not focus,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • State v. Peters
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 27, 2008
    ...or authority for this conclusion. See Celentano v. Rocque, 282 Conn. 645, 659, 923 A.2d 709 (2007); Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 255 Conn. 143, 179, 763 A.2d 1011 (2001) ("[a]nalysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to......
  • Wykeham Rise, LLC v. Federer
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 19, 2012
    ...to serve “ ‘a legal and useful purpose’ ” and thus remain enforceable burdens on the plaintiff's land. Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 255 Conn. 143, 151, 763 A.2d 1011 (2001) (“it is the policy of the law not to uphold restrictions upon the free and unrestricted alienation of property ......
  • Conn. Dermatology Grp., PC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 27, 2023
    ...point out that the right to use property is one stick in the bundle of ownership rights. See, e.g., Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 255 Conn. 143, 151, 763 A.2d 1011 (2001). The plaintiffs' insurance policies do not insure ownership rights , however, but physical property .18 We note t......
  • Murphy v. Zoning Com'n of Town of New Milford
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • August 30, 2002
    ...Engineering Co., Inc. v. Public Utilities Control Authority, 188 Conn. 90, 98, 448 A.2d 210 (1982).6 Cf. Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 255 Conn. 143, 150, 763 A.2d 1011 (2001) (holding that plaintiff was not required to exhaust all administrative procedures because the zoning conditio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
    • United States
    • Land use planning and the environment: a casebook
    • January 23, 2010
    ...review of judicial answers to the question of whether zoning is about ownership as well as use, see Gangemi v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 255 Conn. 143, 164-68, 763 A.2d 1011, 1022-24 (2001) (Sullivan, J., dissenting): We have recognized . . . “the basic zoning principle that zoning regulations......
  • A Will for Willa Cather.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 83 No. 3, June 2018
    • June 22, 2018
    ...to "[t]he principle of unlimited alienability of copyright"); see also, e.g., Gangemi v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Fairfield, 763 A.2d 1011, 1017 (Conn. 2001) (characterizing a "no rental condition" as violating "the policy against economic waste" because it results in a "significant......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT