2007 Ct. Sup. 2861
No. CV05-4003144SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford at Derby
January 29, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
GEORGE W. RIPLEY, II, J.T.R.
The plaintiff in this matter has been the owner of a parcel of land located on Marion Avenue in Milford, Connecticut since 1986. She acquired ownership by way of a quitclaim deed from the City of Milford. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. The City had obtained possession of the property by way of a tax foreclosure and the planning and zoning board recommended to the Board of Aldermen that the property be offered for sale with the restriction that the parcel not be used as a separate building lot. (Ret. of Record, item f.) The Board of Aldermen at their meeting of September 25, 1986 voted to sell it to the highest bidder. (Ret. of Record, item h.) The deed as prepared and delivered to the plaintiff on December 29, 1986 was a standard form of quitclaim deed and set forth no special conditions.
On May 8, 2003 the plaintiff filed an application with Peter Crabtree, assistant city planner for certification of the parcel as a building lot. After circulation among the appropriate town boards with no objections recorded, Crabtree approved the application concluding that the plaintiff met the requirements of Section 6.4.1 of the city’s zoning regulations and posted the parcel as a legal non-conforming lot pursuant to Section 6.4.1(5) of the regulations. A neighbor, Robert Astriab, appealed Crabtree’s action to the Milford Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) which on July 8, 2003 voted to overturn Crabtree’s determination and denied the application. This decision was appealed to this court under Docket No. CV03-0082790, Priscilla Zweeres v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Milford. After reviewing the record, this court on February 9, 2005 (Ret. of Record, a — Memorandum) remanded this matter to the ZBA with instructions to conduct a hearing in accordance with the appropriate General Statutes and Zoning Regulations of the City of Milford.
On April 12, 2005 the ZBA again took up the matter of the plaintiff’s CT Page 2862 application and Crabtree pointed out that the property met all the requirements of Section 6.4.1 of the Zoning Regulations. This section provides that a zoning permit may be issued for an allowable use as a non-conforming lot if certain conditions are met. The section sets forth 4 specific requirements which must be considered. (Ret. of Record, item n.)
Following the public hearing as reviewed in the minutes (Ret. of Record, item t) the ZBA again voted to overturn Crabtree’s decision noting that the parcel was “in the records as 4 separate lots.” See verbatim minutes of business meeting. (Ret. of Record, item w.) That was the extent of the board’s consideration of the item apart from listening to the various individuals for and against the application. No reference was made to the 4 specific items listed under Section 6.4.1.
The case of James Caserta v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Milford, 226 Conn. 80 noted that in appeals regarding actions of a zoning enforcement officer heard by the ZBA, the ZBA is obliged to hear such appeals de novo and make the appropriate findings as to the issues presented. Here, the ZBA in denying the appeal simply made the observation that it seemed that the parcel was intended to be kept as separate lots. This in the view of the court does not satisfy the requirement that a de novo hearing be held with specific findings set forth supporting the board’s conclusion.
The appeal is sustained.
CT Page 2863