Pfister v. Madison Beach Hotel, LLC

• Decision Date: 12 May 2020
• Docket Number: AC 41792
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Cecilia PFISTER et al. v. MADISON BEACH HOTEL, LLC, et al.

197 Conn.App. 326

232 A.3d 52

Cecilia PFISTER et al.

v.MADISON BEACH HOTEL, LLC, et al.

AC 41792

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 21, 2019

Officially released May 12, 2020

Damian K. Gunningsmith, with whom were David S. Hardy and, on the brief, Drew J. Cunningham, New Haven, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).

Scott T. Garosshen, with whom, on the brief, was Karen L. Dowd, Hartford, for the appellees (named plaintiff et al.).

Alvord, Moll and Bishop, Js.

BISHOP, J.

The defendants Madison Beach Hotel, LLC, and Madison Beach Hotel of Florida, LLC, appeal from the trial court's judgment granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs Cecilia Pfister, Margaret P. Carbajal, Katherine Spence, Emile J. Geisenheimer, Susan F. Geisenheimer, Henry L. Platt, Douglas J. Crowley, and 33 MBW, LLC.¹ Specifically, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in holding that their use of a town owned parcel of land to host public concerts violates the zoning regulations of the town of Madison. We agree with the defendants and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. Madison Beach Hotel, LLC, is the owner of the Madison Beach Hotel (hotel) and the real property on which the hotel is situated, 86 and 88 West Wharf Road in Madison (hotel property). Madison Beach Hotel of Florida, LLC, is the operating entity for the hotel. The hotel sits in an R-5 zone.² The hotel property has existed in Madison, albeit under different management, since before the adoption of the town's zoning regulatory scheme on April 10, 1953. Accordingly, the hotel's operation as a hotel and restaurant, which otherwise is not a permitted use in the residential zone in which it sits, was grandfathered as a preexisting nonconforming use.³

In 2006, Madison Beach Hotel, LLC, purchased the hotel property and, thereafter, the hotel began operating as it exists today. Prior to this change in ownership, previous owners of the hotel property had received approval for a number of individual variances pertinent to the property to allow for, among other things, the hotel restaurant to operate year-round instead of just seasonally, and for renovations to expand the hotel size, to reduce the number of guest rooms, and to raise the roof. In 2008, in order to address enforcement difficulties created by the numerous piecemeal variances that, at that time, were still applicable to the hotel property, the hotel applied for what it called a "comprehensive variance," which it claimed would, thereafter, be the sole authority governing the legal uses of the hotel property.

After a public hearing, the Madison Zoning Board of Appeals (board) approved the hotel's variance application. The terms of this variance, as approved by the board, both expanded and reduced nonconformities that existed on the hotel property.⁴ Furthermore, the variance placed "additional conditions and modifications" on the hotel's operation and use of the hotel property. For example, the variance limited amplification of outdoor music played on the hotel property by prohibiting any amplification louder than that which can be plainly heard within fifty feet of the hotel property.

In 2012, the hotel began sponsoring a summer concert series, known as the Grassy Strip Summer Concert Series (concert series), which consisted of one concert per week for approximately ten weeks each summer, with each concert lasting from 7 p.m. until approximately 9:30 p.m. In sponsoring the concert series, the hotel would schedule, organize, fund, and host the concerts on a strip of land located immediately adjacent to the hotel, known as the Grassy Strip. The Grassy Strip is part of a town owned parcel of land called West Wharf Beach Park. Since 1896, the Grassy Strip and West Wharf Beach Park have been owned exclusively by the town and have been used as a park since prior to the enactment of the Madison zoning regulations. Like the hotel, the park is located in a residential zone and is not considered a permitted use under the zoning regulations. Therefore, similar to the hotel property, the park was grandfathered into the Madison zoning scheme as a preexisting nonconforming use in an R-4 district.⁵

The Grassy Strip is available for recreational use by any taxpaying citizen of Madison who files the appropriate facilities request form and pays the corresponding fees.⁶ The evidence adduced at trial reveals that, each summer, the hotel obtains the requisite permits from the town and pays the requisite fees in order to hold the concerts on the Grassy Strip. The hotel secures the town's showmobile,⁷ uses its own electricity, hires and pays the bands, reimburses the town for providing police officers to direct traffic, and advertises the concert series to the public. Although the concerts take place on the Grassy Strip, the hotel also utilizes portable bars located on the porches of the hotel to serve beverages, and the hotel restaurant is open for business during the concerts. Accordingly, patrons who attend the concerts often travel back and forth between the hotel property and the Grassy Strip during the concert to buy food and beverages, and many attendees choose to watch the concert from the hotel's balconies and railings. Although attendance at the concerts has been estimated to average around 200 patrons per show, the evidence revealed that, for at least one of the concerts held in 2017, attendance reached close to 1000 attendees.

Since 2012, there have been a number of complaints regarding the noise and the traffic created by the concert series, which the town and the hotel have worked together to alleviate. On June 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the trial court against the defendants, alleging, among other things, that the defendants had violated § 12.3 of the zoning regulations of Madison by hosting outdoor concerts and, therefore, illegally extending and expanding nonpreexisting nonconforming uses of the hotel property.⁸ The defendants disagreed, arguing that the use restrictions imposed on the hotel property have no impact on their activities on the Grassy Strip. After a bench trial, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, granting their request for a permanent injunction that prohibits the defendants from "organizing, producing, promoting, or sponsoring the Grassy [Strip] Summer Concert Series ...."⁹ This appeal followed.

The defendants claim on appeal that the court erred in (1) determining that their use of the Grassy Strip violated the Madison zoning regulations, and (2) relying on Crabtree Realty Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 82 Conn. App. 559, 845 A.2d 447, cert. denied, 269 Conn. 911, 852 A.2d 739 (2004), to support that determination. With regard to their first claim, the defendants argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the use restrictions applicable to the hotel property are also binding on the actions taken by the hotel on the Grassy Strip.¹⁰ We agree with the defendants that the use restrictions that bind the hotel property, including the 2008 variance and any remaining nonconforming use,¹¹ are irrelevant here, as they do not apply to the activities permitted to be held by the defendants on the Grassy Strip. We also agree with the defendants' second claim that Crabtree Realty Co. is inapplicable in the present case. Because these two claims are intertwined, we address them together.¹²

We first set forth the relevant legal principles in reviewing a court's decision to grant a request for a permanent injunction. "A party seeking injunctive relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law. ... A prayer for injunctive relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and the court's ruling can be reviewed only for the purpose of determining whether the decision was based on an erroneous statement of law or an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Orange , 256 Conn. 557, 566, 775 A.2d 284 (2001).

Given that the defendants' claim requires us to interpret the Madison zoning regulations, "we exercise plenary review because such interpretation involves questions of law. ... Moreover, zoning regulations are local legislative enactments ... and, therefore, their interpretation is governed by the same principles that apply to the construction of statutes. ... [R]egulations 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 ... the relevant zoning regulation] as applied to the facts of the case, including the question of whether the language does so apply." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Steroco, Inc. v. Szymanski , 166 Conn. App. 75, 82, 140 A.3d 1014 (2016).

The essence of the defendants' argument is that the court's ruling—that the restrictions applicable to the hotel property also apply to their activities on the Grassy Strip—violates a basic principle of land use law. "It is well established that the zoning power can be exercised only to regulate land use and is not concerned with ownership." Lord Family of Windsor, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 288 Conn. 730, 740, 954 A.2d 831 (2008) ; see also Reid v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 235 Conn. 850, 857, 670 A.2d 1271 (1996) ("zoning power may only be used to regulate the use, not the user of the land" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Verrillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 155 Conn. App. 657, 680, 111 A.3d 473 (2015) ("[z]oning is concerned with the use of property and not primarily with its ownership" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, the defendants argue that the court erred when it employed an analysis that considers the permissible uses of both properties...