Johnson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Branford, 2804
| Decision Date | 22 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 2804,2804 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Carol C. JOHNSON v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF BRANFORD et al. |
Carol C. Johnson, pro se.
Frank J. Dumark, Branford, for appellee (named defendant).
John W. Colleran, New Haven, for appellee (defendant Annette Kreske).
Walter J. Kreske, pro se.
Before DANNEHY, C.P.J., and TESTO and HULL, JJ.
The plaintiff appeals 1 from the decision of the Superior Court dismissing as moot his appeal from the granting of a variance by the defendant zoning board of appeals. The relevant facts are as follows.
The plaintiff is the owner of a shorefront lot in Branford on which there are a dwelling house and guest house. The defendants Walter and Annette Kreske are the owners of the adjoining lot on which there are a dwelling house and an outbuilding. In 1965, the zoning regulations provided that the maximum floor area of a building on either of these lots may not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. The Kreskes' house was a nonconforming use since the bulk floor area exceeded the maximum size by 7 percent. In 1965, the Kreskes applied to the Branford zoning board of appeals for a variance which would legalize additions to the house which had already been made. These additions had increased the extent of the nonconformance from 7 percent to 18 percent. The plaintiff appeared at the hearing and opposed the Kreskes' application, which was nevertheless granted by the board. The variance permitted in increase in the Kreskes' already nonconforming use from 37 percent to 48 percent of the lot area.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas 2 from the board's decision. That court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff had not been aggrieved. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court which, upon determining that the plaintiff had been aggrieved, remanded the matter for consideration on the merits. Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 156 Conn. 622, 238 A.2d 413 (1968). During the pendency of the appeal on remand, the town of Branford amended its zoning ordinance in such a fashion that the Kreskes' house became a conforming use since, as amended, the regulation provided that the maximum floor area of the building could not exceed 50 percent of the lot area. No appeal was taken by the plaintiff from the amendment of the zoning regulations.
On remand to the Superior Court, the defendants each claimed by way of special defense that the amended zoning regulations had rendered the plaintiff's appeal moot. The court, Celotto, J., rendered judgment dismissing the appeal as moot and the plaintiff appealed.
The Supreme Court, in Edward Balf Co. v. East Granby, 152 Conn. 319, 323, 207 A.2d 58 (1965), stated that "since zoning regulations are presumed to be for the welfare of the entire community, the mere institution of a legal proceeding to determine the [party's] rights should not be allowed to 'freeze' [those] rights and possibly upset the development of a community according to its comprehensive plan." The dispute should not be settled on the basis of zoning regulations which no longer exist. Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Layton v. Howard County
...Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Comm'n of Town of Hamden, 220 Conn. 527, 540, 600 A.2d 757, 765 (1991); Johnson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2 Conn.App. 24, 475 A.2d 339 (1984), superceded by statute, Connecticut General Statute §§ 8-2h and 22a-42e (2006), as recognized in Protect Hamden/North Hav......
-
Michel v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Monroe, 10766
...1, 1989, legislatively overruled McCallum v. Inland Wetlands Commission, 196 Conn. 218, 492 A.2d 508 (1985), and Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 2 Conn.App. 24, 475 A.2d 339, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 806, 482 A.2d 711 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1066, 105 S.Ct. 2141, 85 L.Ed.2d 498 (1......
-
Protect Hamden/North Haven from Excessive Traffic and Pollution, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Hamden
...172 Conn. 306, 374 A.2d 245 (1977) (expiration of challenged zoning regulations rendered appeal moot). See also Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 2 Conn.App. 24, 475 A.2d 339, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 806, 482 A.2d 711 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1066, 105 S.Ct. 2141, 85 L.Ed.2d 498 (19......
-
Town of East Lyme v. Waddington
...(Footnote omitted.) McCallum v. Inland Wetlands Commission, 196 Conn. 218, 223, 492 A.2d 508 (1985); Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 2 Conn.App. 24, 27, 475 A.2d 339 (1984). Zoning disputes should not be settled on the basis of regulations which no longer exist. Johnson v. Zoning Board ......