Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; December 30, 1986; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
The central issue in the consolidated appeals is the interpretation of Essex's zoning regulations regarding the termination of nonconforming property uses due to nonuse for one year, irrespective of the owner's intent to discontinue such use. The trial court mistakenly interpreted the relevant regulation, 50E.1, as necessitating proof of intent to relinquish nonconforming use. The plaintiff, owner of the property, was denied a permit to continue the nonconforming business use, leading to an appeal to the zoning board, which upheld the denial based on the absence of use for over a year, without considering intent. The Superior Court sustained the plaintiff's appeal, asserting that intent was required under 50E.1, a stance the defendants contested.
The court found that the zoning regulations indeed allow for termination of a nonconforming use solely based on a year of nonuse, as indicated in 50E.1, without the necessity of demonstrating intent. It distinguished this case from prior rulings, clarifying that Essex’s regulations are structured to allow cessation of nonconforming use after a specified period of nonuse, while 50E.2 addresses abandonment, which does necessitate intent. Thus, the court concluded that Essex's zoning regulations effectively permit the cessation of nonconforming uses after one year of nonuse, independent of the property owner's intent.
The interpretation of Section 50E.1, which mandates a one-year period of non-use, does not require intent to abandon; otherwise, it would make Section 50E.2 redundant. This conclusion is supported by the case Canada’s Tavern, Inc. v. Glen Echo, where the court ruled that a similar code provision did not necessitate intent to abandon a nonconforming use after a specified period of cessation. The term "cessation" should not be equated with "discontinuance" or abandonment, as this overlooks the comprehensive framework provided in Section 50A, which allows nonconforming uses to persist until they are changed to conform or terminated.
In the context of zoning regulation changes, if a property is rendered nonconforming and not used for one year post-regulation, the nonconforming use is extinguished regardless of the owner’s intent. The trial court's requirement of intent for nonuse after the cessation of a nonconforming use is inconsistent with the regulations, which do not differentiate between nonuse due to owner cessation and nonuse from a regulatory change. This aligns with the state's objective to minimize nonconforming uses swiftly.
The plaintiff's claim regarding the determination of non-use under 50E.1 was not addressed by the trial court due to its interpretation of "cessation." Although the plaintiff sought to present this claim as an alternative basis for upholding the trial court's decision, it is deemed more appropriate for the trial court to resolve it. Consequently, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings. It is noted that the plaintiff was a proposed user at the time of the initial application and acquired the property during the appeal process.
