Gibbons v. Historic District Commission of the Town of Fairfield, 285 Conn. 755

941 A.2d 917 (2008) · Supreme Court of Connecticut · March 11, 2008 · No. No. 17846

Summary

The Supreme Court of Connecticut considered whether a historic district commission had statutory authority to deny a certificate of appropriateness based on the proposed relocation of an outbuilding and its effect on the historic integrity of Southport Harbor. The court held that the commission’s stated consideration was within its statutory authority, but concluded that the record lacked substantial evidence supporting the stated reason for denial. The court therefore affirmed the trial court’s judgment sustaining the property owner’s appeal.

Holdings

  1. A historic district commission may consider not only the architectural features of the structure being altered and their relationship to nearby structures, but also the relationship of the structure to a place of historic significance within the historic district, including Southport Harbor.
  2. The commission's stated reason was not supported by substantial evidence because the record did not establish that the outbuilding, its location, or its design had historic significance in relation to Southport Harbor.
  3. When a historic district commission states the reasons for denying a certificate of appropriateness, the reviewing court is limited to determining whether those stated reasons are supported by substantial evidence and may not search the record for alternative reasons.
  4. The commission's denial was an arbitrary and unreasonable abuse of discretion because it was based on aesthetic preferences rather than an evidence-based determination that the proposed relocation would affect historically significant aspects of the district.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the historic district commission had statutory authority to consider the effect of relocating the outbuilding on the historic integrity of Southport Harbor.
  2. Whether substantial evidence supported the commission's stated reason that relocation of the outbuilding would damage the historical integrity of Southport Harbor.
  3. Whether a reviewing court may search the record for reasons other than those expressly stated by a historic district commission.
  4. Whether the commission's denial constituted an arbitrary and unreasonable abuse of discretion.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (20)

  • Pansy Road, LLC v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 283 Conn. 369, 374, 926 A.2d 1029 (2007)(followed)
  • Figarsky v. Historic District Commission, 171 Conn. 198, 202, 207-210, 212, 368 A.2d 163 (1976)(followed)
  • Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, 284 Conn. 838, 853-854, 860-862, 937 A.2d 39 (2008)(followed)
  • Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 485, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003)(followed)
  • Heithaus v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 258 Conn. 205, 217, 223-224, 779 A.2d 750 (2001)(followed)
  • Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 227 Conn. 71, 80, 629 A.2d 1089 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1164 (1994)(followed)
  • Gevers v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 94 Conn. App. 478, 483, 892 A.2d 979 (2006)(followed)
  • Suffield Heights Corp. v. Town Planning Commission, 144 Conn. 425, 428, 133 A.2d 612 (1957)(followed)
  • Dubiel v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 147 Conn. 517, 522, 162 A.2d 711 (1960)(followed)
  • DeMaria v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 159 Conn. 534, 540-541, 271 A.2d 105 (1970)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Connecticut Supreme Court