Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals
2001 Conn. LEXIS 1, 763 A.2d 1011, 255 Conn. 143 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning condition that was not timely appealed upon its imposition may nevertheless be collaterally challenged if its continued maintenance violates a strong public policy, such as the policy against unreasonable restraints on the alienation of property.
Facts:
- In 1986, Sebastian and Rebecca Gangemi owned a home on a nonconforming lot in the Fairfield beach district and applied for a zoning variance to enlarge the home and convert it from seasonal to year-round use.
- In their application, the Gangemis stated their intention to use the property for 'family use only on a year-round basis.'
- On May 1, 1986, the Fairfield zoning board of appeals (board) granted the variance with a condition of 'owner occupancy only,' effectively prohibiting the Gangemis from renting the property.
- In 1990, the Gangemis moved out of the home and began renting it to various tenants.
- At some point after 1986, the town amended its zoning regulations to permit year-round use for all properties in the beach district, independent of the Gangemis' variance.
- Other property owners in the Fairfield beach district are not prohibited from renting their homes, provided occupancy is limited to four or fewer unrelated persons.
- On May 20, 1996, Fairfield's zoning enforcement officer issued an order directing the Gangemis to comply with the 'no rental' condition and have their tenants vacate the property.
Procedural Posture:
- The Fairfield zoning enforcement officer ordered Sebastian and Rebecca Gangemi to comply with a 'no rental' condition on their property.
- The Gangemis applied to the Fairfield zoning board of appeals (board), the defendant, to invalidate the condition, but the board denied the application.
- The Gangemis appealed the board's decision to the Superior Court (trial court).
- The Superior Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding the challenge was untimely as it was not made when the condition was imposed in 1986.
- The Gangemis, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted the Gangemis' petition for certification to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the continued maintenance of a 'no rental' condition on a zoning variance, which was not challenged by direct appeal when imposed, violate the strong public policy against restraints on the alienation of property, thereby permitting a collateral attack on the condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Borden, J.
Yes. The continued maintenance of the 'no rental' condition violates the strong and deeply rooted public policy against restraints on the free alienation of property. This case presents an exception to the general rule barring collateral attacks on unappealed zoning conditions, as suggested in the dictum of Upjohn Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals. The court's analysis focuses not on the condition's validity when imposed, but on whether its current enforcement violates public policy. The right to rent is a fundamental part of the 'bundle of rights' of property ownership. This condition strips the Gangemis of a key economic use of their property and also significantly depresses its sale value, as the pool of potential buyers for a property with a permanent no-rental restriction is drastically limited. Furthermore, the condition serves no valid 'legal and useful purpose' because it is not applied district-wide, giving neighboring property owners who can rent their properties an unfair market advantage. Enforcing this individualized restriction, which does not align with any broader zoning policy for the district, constitutes economic waste and is an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
Dissenting - Sullivan, J.
No. The 'no rental' condition is not so restrictive that it outweighs the important public policies of finality and stability in zoning decisions, and therefore it should not be subject to a collateral attack. The general rule from Upjohn Co. bars challenges to zoning conditions that were not timely appealed, and exceptions should be extremely narrow. The public policy against restraints on alienation only invalidates restrictions that serve no 'legal and useful purpose.' Here, the board could have reasonably believed the condition served a legitimate zoning purpose—mitigating the harms of intensifying a nonconforming use by preserving the neighborhood's residential character and stability. The plaintiffs themselves proposed the 'family use only' limitation in their application, making it inequitable for them to retain the variance's benefits while shedding its burdens years later. The restriction does not deprive the plaintiffs of all economically viable use of their land, and the strong interest in the finality of zoning decisions should prevent the court from allowing this belated challenge.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the 'public policy' exception to the finality of zoning decisions, elevating the dictum from Upjohn Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals into a holding. It empowers property owners to challenge long-standing, unappealed zoning conditions that severely impinge upon fundamental property rights, particularly the right of alienation. The case signals that courts will look unfavorably upon ad hoc, individualized zoning conditions that are not grounded in district-wide regulations and that place a single property owner at a significant economic disadvantage relative to their neighbors. This precedent creates a new avenue for relief for property owners burdened by old conditions and requires zoning boards to consider the long-term public policy implications of the restrictions they impose.
Unlock the full brief for Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals