Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut; March 22, 1988; Connecticut; State Supreme Court
The central issue in this case is whether a municipality can enact zoning regulations that terminate a nonconforming use based solely on nonuse for a designated period, without considering the property owner's intent to relinquish that use. Essex Leasing, Inc. challenged the Essex zoning board of appeals' decision that terminated its nonconforming use regardless of intent. The trial court initially upheld the appeal, interpreting the zoning regulations as requiring proof of intent to relinquish the use. However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision, stating that the regulations allowed for the termination of a nonconforming use based solely on nonuse.
The facts reveal that in early 1983, Essex Leasing sought to purchase a building in a residential zone that had a legal nonconforming commercial use. The prior tenant had stopped operations in 1981 but continued to pay rent and maintain the property until March 1983. Essex Leasing filed for a permit to continue the nonconforming use on March 28, 1983, after acquiring the property on May 2, 1983. The zoning enforcement officer denied the permit, citing a change in use and the termination of nonconforming use due to nonuse for over a year, as outlined in the Essex zoning regulations.
Upon appeal, the zoning board upheld the denial based solely on the nonuse period. Essex Leasing contested this decision, arguing that the board lacked authority to terminate the nonconforming use solely on nonuse, that the interpretation of the regulations was incorrect, and that there was insufficient evidence of a one-year nonuse period. The trial court ruled in favor of Essex Leasing, associating “cessation” with “discontinuance” and requiring intent, but the Appellate Court found this interpretation erroneous. It concluded that the local zoning regulations allowed termination of a nonconforming use based solely on nonuse, affirming the Appellate Court's judgment.
The court's conclusion was informed by a detailed examination of relevant regulations and a state policy emphasizing the reduction of nonconforming uses. The trial court had not determined whether a one-year period of nonuse had occurred, leading the Appellate Court to remand the case for further proceedings on that factual issue. The court granted certification to address whether a town can enact zoning regulations that terminate a nonconforming use due to nonuse over a specified time, independent of the property owner's intention to maintain that use.
To resolve this, it must first be established whether § 50E.1 of the Essex zoning regulations terminates a nonconforming use without needing to demonstrate intent. The Appellate Court's analysis indicated that interpreting § 50E.1 to include an intent requirement would render § 50E.2, which addresses abandonment, redundant. The latter requires intent to permanently cease a nonconforming use. The Appellate Court noted that § 50E.1's provision for a one-year nonuse period independently serves to extinguish a nonconforming use, even if the property owner did not intend to abandon it, particularly in the context of potential amendments to zoning regulations that could affect the nonconforming status of a property.
The Appellate Court found no basis for requiring intent in cases of nonuse lasting one year due to prior nonconformity, contrasting with instances where intent was deemed unnecessary following new nonconformity. The plaintiff contends that the term "cessation" implies a need for proof of intent, equating it with "discontinuance," and argues that a year of nonuse only creates a presumption of relinquishment that can be countered by demonstrating intent to maintain use. However, the court disagrees, determining that "cessation" does not inherently impose an intent requirement. The interpretation of zoning regulations aims to reflect the local legislative intent, ensuring no clause is rendered superfluous. Section 50E establishes two methods for terminating nonconforming uses: intentional abandonment under § 50E.2 and a time-based standard under § 50E.1. This bifurcated approach allows for the coexistence of these standards to expedite the reduction of nonconforming uses. The term "cessation" in the Essex zoning regulations does not necessitate intent. The plaintiff's alternative argument for a rebuttable presumption of relinquishment lacks textual support in § 50E.1 and relies on case law from other jurisdictions that do not directly apply, as they involve different terminologies related to owner intent. The clear language of the regulation precludes the court from adding interpretations not explicitly stated in the text.
The term "cessation" in § 50E.1 of the Essex zoning regulations allows for the termination of a nonconforming use after a designated period of nonuse, irrespective of the owner's intent. The plaintiff contends that Essex overstepped its authority under the zoning enabling act by enacting this regulation, claiming it results in a taking of property without just compensation. However, this constitutional claim was not sufficiently raised at trial as required by Practice Book § 4185, and the brief analysis provided by the plaintiff lacks the detail necessary for constitutional adjudication, thus failing to preserve the claim for review.
The statutory analysis reveals that the town of Essex and its zoning board of appeals can only exercise powers explicitly granted to them or necessary for their functions. The zoning enabling act empowers municipalities to establish local zoning regulations, including control over land use. Nevertheless, § 8-2 limits this power by prohibiting the termination of nonconforming uses existing at the time of regulation adoption. The plaintiff argues this limitation prevents Essex from extinguishing nonconforming uses without owner intent. The court disagrees, stating prior cases do not support the necessity of intent for the abatement of nonconforming uses. Instead, there is precedent suggesting municipalities can terminate such uses based solely on a specified period of nonuse.
Cases involving regulations that eliminate property rights solely due to nonuse, such as § 50E.1, are unprecedented. The plaintiff argues that § 8-2 prohibits municipalities from terminating nonconforming uses without considering the owner's intent. However, past rulings, specifically in Loughlin, established that municipalities cannot enforce mandatory amortization of nonconforming uses. The town of Essex's zoning regulation does not prohibit the continuation of the plaintiff's property rights but allows for termination due to nonuse. While § 8-2 protects a user's right to maintain established uses, it does not imply that this right cannot be forfeited through nonuse. The court concludes that municipalities are empowered to end nonconforming uses after a specified period of nonuse, which aligns with zoning goals to phase out such uses. Numerous courts support this authority, allowing local governments to implement zoning regulations that terminate nonconforming uses due to nonuse, independent of intent. The Appellate Court's judgment is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings to assess if the plaintiff's property was unused for one year per § 50E.1 of the Essex regulations.
Edwin L. Russell and Alicia Z. Russell, neighboring landowners, were allowed to intervene as defendants in the trial court. Their consolidated brief will be treated jointly. The Essex zoning regulations include a provision that allows the restoration of non-conforming uses or improvements damaged by fire or other casualties, subject to certain restrictions, as outlined in Essex Zoning Regulations § 50F. The appeal does not require interpretation of this exemption.
General Statutes § 8-2 grants zoning commissions the authority to regulate various aspects of land use within municipalities, including building height, lot occupancy, and population density. Zoning regulations must be uniform within districts but can differ between districts, allowing for special permits or exceptions under specific conditions to protect public health, safety, and property values. These regulations are designed to align with a comprehensive plan aimed at reducing congestion, ensuring safety, promoting health, and providing for adequate public services.
Consideration must be given to district characteristics, and regulations should encourage housing opportunities while protecting historic factors and public drinking water supplies. Since July 1, 1985, regulations must include measures for soil erosion and sediment control. Additionally, they may promote energy-efficient development and renewable energy use, providing incentives for developers who incorporate energy conservation techniques, such as cluster or higher density development. Furthermore, regulations cannot prohibit existing nonconforming uses, and municipalities may exempt their property from zoning regulations with legislative approval.
