Karl Mayer-Wittmann, Executor (Estate of Gerda Mayer-Wittmann) v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Stamford et al.

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of an appeal challenging variances granted to reconstruct a legally nonconforming accessory structure damaged by Hurricane Sandy. The court held that the structure retained its legally nonconforming status for setback and height requirements, while flood-elevation requirements applied because repair costs exceeded 50 percent of the structure’s value. The court also held that the zoning board properly found an unusual hardship and granted the requested variances.

Holdings

1. Article IV, § 10 (C), did not terminate the sea cottage's legally nonconforming status because the cottage could not have been reconstructed and used as before without either complying with the minimum flood-elevation requirement or obtaining a variance from it. The cottage retained its legally nonconforming status as to setback and building-height requirements.
2. The zoning board properly granted the variances because strict enforcement would have deprived Breunich of his constitutionally protected right to continue using an existing, legally nonconforming accessory structure, creating an unusual hardship.
3. The zoning board was not required to reduce every nonconformity to the maximum extent possible before granting variances that allowed continuation of the existing legally nonconforming cottage and reduced some of its nonconformities.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the sea cottage lost its legally nonconforming status because reconstruction was not commenced within twelve months of the hurricane under article IV, § 10 (C), of the Stamford Zoning Regulations.
2. Whether flood-prone-area regulations required the cottage to comply with the minimum elevation requirement despite its prior legally nonconforming status.
3. Whether the zoning board properly found an unusual hardship warranting variances from the setback and height requirements.
4. Whether the variances granted were impermissible because they were not the minimum relief necessary or because the owner could have reduced all of the cottage's nonconformities further.

Disposition

affirmed