Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/08/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2011 1 Volume 5 1 No. 13 cation for site plan approval of specific products to be sold at the Property. R & R proposed to sell: 1. Furniture and furnishings, including customary related accessories such as cushions, umbrellas, and tableware re- lated to furniture in stock ... 2. Spas, hot tubs and pool accessories ... 3. Billiard and gaming tables and accesso- ries ... 4. Fireplace equipment and grills ... 5. Works of art ... 6. Christmas and seasonal holiday products. The planning director denied the application. R & R then ap- pealed to the town's zoning board of appeals (the "Board"). The Board considered the list of six items proposed by R & R. In do- ing so, the Board looked at the items permitted under the Amatulli variance and "attempted to derive a workable definition of 'fine furniture." The Board found no intent in the legislative history of the Amatulli variance and instead developed a definition over the course of deliberations. The Board eventually concluded that the only items permitted to be sold at the Property were: works of art; and furniture and billiard tables that were "one of a kind, hand- crafted, not mass produced and capable of appreciating in value." R & R appealed the Board's decision to the superior court. R & R claimed that "the [B]oard acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion" in redefining "fine furniture" as it was used in the Amatulli variance. The court agreed. It found the Board's definition of "fine furni- ture" had "no relation to the use of the premises as originally pro- posed and approved by the [B]oard at the time of the grant of the original variance." The court then held that the meaning of "fine furniture" as used in the Amatulli variance was "`good quality fur- niture,' nothing more and nothing less." The Board appealed the court's decision. It argued that the court improperly overturned its definition of fine furniture; and substi- tuted its interpretation of the term. The Board argued that it was "entitled to deference in its interpretation of the words and terms contained in a certificate of variance that it issued." DECISION: Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that whether a local zoning board's interpretation of undefined words or phrases con- tained in a certificate of zoning variance is entitled to deference depends on whether the words or phrases are ambiguous. If they are clear and unambiguous on their face, the interpretation of their meaning poses a question of law requiring only a look at the cer- tificate and therefore according no deference to the board, said the court. However, if the undefined words or phrases are ambiguous © 2011 Thomson Reuters 3