Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

Page 6-- lanuary 25, 2006 Decision -- Lower court makes decision regarding lot size After several appeals, party returns to ori~nal argument Citation: Bishop v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Guilford, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 25827 (2005) CONNECTICUT (12/13/05) -- Bishop bought a lot of Iand from Guerrera. Bishop sought to renovate the house on the property by demolishing the existing structure and rebuilding a house in compliance with all zoning require- merits. Consequently, she fried the requisite application for a coastal site-plan review. Guerrera, who owned property across from Bishop's, complained that t_he site plan failed to comply with zoning regulations because the lot was noncon- forming. The Zoning Hearing Board of Appeals of the Town of Guilford sided with Guerrera. However, the planning and zoning commission sided with Bishop and awarded the necessary permits. Guerrera sued, and the court ruled in Bishop's favor. Several different law- suits followed, ultimately ending in Bishop's favor. In one of the later cases, Guerrera appealed, arguing that the od=final board decision that Bishop's lot was nonconforming was proper. DECISION: Reversed. Guerrera was barred from relifigating the case. When an issue of ultimate fact was determined by a valid and final judg- ment, "collateral estoppel" barred the issue from being relitigated by the same parties in any future lawsuit. Thus, to determine whether collateral estoppel applied, the court had to look at whether the issue of lot size was fully and fairly Litigated, and whether the determination of that issue was necessary to the prior judgment. In Ms original suit, Guerrera alleged and argued that the lot was noncon- forming. The lower court reviewed the comprehensive record and the appli- cable regulations. The lower court's determination also included a thorough review of Guerrera's claims in light of the regulations and evidence in the record. Thus, the issue of lot conformity was fully and fairly litigated. The court in Guerrera's case actually and necessarily decided the issue of whether Bishop's lot met the 10,000-foot requirement. Without a determination that the lot was a size required by the local zoning regulations, the court would have sustained Guerrera's case. Ultimately, afl'ri'ming Bishop's site plan ap- proval required a determination of lot conformity. Since lot conformity was determined in the lower court, it could not be relifigated. see also: Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 773 A.2d 300 (2001). see also: R & R Pool & Patio lnc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 778 A.2d 61 (2001). 136 © 2008 Ouinian Publishing Group. Any repmOuc~ion ia prot~ibitefl. For more information please call (617) 5424048.