Opinion
KELLER, J.
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 appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court, which granted the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants Madison Beach Hotel, LLC, and Madison Beach Hotel of Florida, LLC,2 from hosting a summer concert series at a public park adjacent to the Madison Beach Hotel (hotel). The plaintiffs claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the injunction because the concerts do not violate the Madison zoning regulations. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. "Madison Beach Hotel, LLC, is the owner of the [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 [district].3 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.4
"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 ... 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.5
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 ...." (Footnotes in original.) Pfister v. Madison Beach Hotel, LLC , 197 Conn. App. 326, 328–30, 232 A.3d 52 (2020). "As of 1974, parks were a permitted use of property in residential zones under the Madison zoning regulations. [In 1979], the zoning code [was] revised to add the requirement that, in order to establish a park in a residential zone, the land owner must obtain a special exception.6 Because West Wharf Beach Park existed in the [residential] zone prior to the special exception requirement, it was grandfathered into this requirement [as a preexisting nonconforming use]." (Footnote added.) Id., at 330 n.5, 232 A.3d 52. Despite the special exception requirement, it remains a permitted use within the zone. See Madison Zoning Regs., §§ 3.11 and 4.1.
"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.7 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,8 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 [Madison] [Z]oning [R]egulations ... by hosting outdoor concerts and, therefore, illegally extending and expanding nonpreexisting, nonconforming uses of the hotel property.9 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 [trial] court rendered judgment [in favor of] the plaintiffs, granting their request for a permanent injunction that prohibits the defendants from organizing, producing, promoting, or sponsoring the ... [c]oncert [s]eries ...."10 (Footnotes in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Pfister v. Madison Beach Hotel, LLC , supra, 197 Conn. App. at 331–32, 232 A.3d 52.
In so doing, the trial court reasoned that, because the hotel could not host the concert series on the hotel property without illegally expanding that property's nonconforming use, it could not host the concert series on the Grassy Strip without also violating the use restrictions applicable to the hotel. Specifically, the court stated: "Once the concert series is seen for what it is—an activity produced by the hotel as part of its business operations—the legal analysis is relatively straightforward. The activity is illegal because it goes far beyond the preexisting, nonconforming use [of the hotel property] permitted under [§] 12.3 of the Madison Zoning Regulations .... The fact that the hotel has made arrangements ... to locate the musical performance ... on an adjacent property does not change the undeniable reality that the concert series substantially extends and expands the hotel's nonconforming use of [the hotel] property. Physically and operationally, the concerts are an integral component of the business activity at the hotel in virtually every respect. ... In the same way that the hotel could not evade the illegality by purchasing or leasing the Grassy Strip from the town to hold concerts, it also cannot temporarily lease or license [it] for the purpose, and with the effect, of enlarging its business operations; an annexation of adjacent land that enlarges the hotel's nonconforming use is illegal in the absence of a variance or zone change." (Citation omitted.) The trial court cited 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), as legal support for the theory that the hotel's use of the Grassy Strip effectively annexed that property to the hotel, thus permitting the trial court to treat the two properties as one for purposes of its analysis.
On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendants claimed that the trial court incorrectly concluded that (1) "the use restrictions applicable to the hotel property are also binding on the actions taken by the hotel on the Grassy Strip," and (2) Crabtree Realty Co. supported that determination.11 Pfister v. Madison Beach Hotel, LLC , supra, 197 Conn. App. at 332–33, 232 A.3d 52. The Appellate Court agreed with both claims. See id., at 333, 232 A.3d 52. Applying plenary review to the trial court's decision to grant the permanent injunction, the Appellate Court explained that the decision violated a fundamental tenet of land use law, namely, that "zoning power may only be used to regulate the use, not the user of the land ...." (Citation omitted; internal...
