Zoning Board of Appeals

The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the decision by the defen- dant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Stamford granting the application of the defendant P, filed on behalf of the defendant P Co., for approval for the location of an automotive repair business on certain real property. The board had referred P Co.'s application to the city's Planning Board and Engineering Bureau for comment. The Planning Board recommended that the application be denied. The Engineering Bureau did not object to the application but expressed various concerns. The board thereafter published notice of a public hearing on the applica- tion, which stated that P Co. sought to operate a used car dealership on the property. The board approved the application subject to certain conditions, which included concerns expressed by the Engineering Bureau. The plaintiff, which owned property that abutted the site at issue, claimed, inter alia, that the board failed to conduct a suitability analysis, as required by statute ([Rev. to 2003] § 14-55). The Superior Court concluded that the board had given due consideration to the suitability of the property and rendered judgment denying the appeal. The plaintiff then appealed to this court, which concluded that the General Assembly had not repealed § 14-55 in 2003, and reversed the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceed- ings. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, which deter- mined that the General Assembly had repealed § 14-55 in 2003 and reversed in part this court's judgment and remanded the case to this court to consider the plaintiff's remaining claims. Held: 1. The plaintiff's claim that the notice of the public hearing on P Co.'s application was defective and, thus, deprived the board of jurisdiction to consider the application, was unavailing; because the legislature has not enacted a proper substitute for § 14-55, which had set forth the requirements for prehearing notice regarding loca

Pursuant to the Stamford Zoning Regulations (article IV, § 10 [C]), when a legally nonconforming building has been damaged by a flood or other calamity, the building ''may be reconstructed and used as before'' if reconstruction is commenced within twelve months of the calamity. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court, which dismissed his appeal from the decision of the defendant zoning board of appeals granting the application of the defendant property owner, B, for vari- ances in connection with the reconstruction of a cottage on his property after the cottage was severely damaged by a hurricane. The plaintiff owned real property adjacent to B's beachfront property. The cottage was nonconforming under the Stamford Zoning Regulations in several respects, including its location in relation to various setback require- ments, its height of eighteen feet, ten inches, and its elevation of 8.7 feet. Pursuant to the zoning regulations, the maximum height for an accessory structure such as the cottage is fifteen feet and the minimum elevation standard for such a structure is sixteen feet, as its location makes it subject to certain zoning regulations applicable to flood prone areas. Nevertheless, because the cottage had been built before the zoning regulations at issue were adopted, it constituted a legally nonconforming structure. Following the hurricane, the cost to repair the cottage exceeded 50 percent of its value, and, in order for it to be reconstructed, the zoning board required that B conform the cottage to certain regula- tions governing flood prone areas, including the minimum elevation requirement. B applied for variances from the building height and set- back requirements of the regulations because it would have been impos- sible for him to conform both to the fifteen foot maximum height allowed for the cottage and to the minimum flood elevation of sixteen feet, and because restoration of the cottage required that it be moved three feet nort