March 18, 2019
from Superior Court, New London District, Joseph Q. Koletsky,
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Vincent John Purnhagen, South Windsor, for the appellant
B. Flynn, Hartford, for the appellees (defendants).
Bright and Flynn, Js.
Conn.App. 768] The plaintiff, Peter White, appeals from the
judgment of the trial court, ruling in favor of the
defendants, Latimer Point Condominium Association, Inc.,
(association), and Gennaro Modugno and Elizabeth Modugno,
whom we collectively refer to as the [191 Conn.App. 769]
Modugnos, on the plaintiffs complaint, which was brought
pursuant to General Statutes § 47-278. On [191 Conn.App.
the plaintiff claims that the court misapplied and
disregarded relevant case law, that it failed to apply
properly the 10 percent rule contained in the associations
bylaws, that it ignored overwhelming evidence
that the association failed to comply with its tree trimming
schedule, and that it rendered a judgment that is neither
legally correct nor factually supported by the record. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
record reveals the following uncontested facts and procedural
history, which are relevant to the plaintiffs appeal. The
plaintiff is the owner of unit 23 at the Latimer Point
Condominiums (Latimer), a common interest ownership community
established pursuant to General Statutes § 47-200 et seq.
Latimer is situated on Fishers Island Sound in Stonington.
The Modugnos are owners of unit 7 at Latimer. Unit 7 is
situated between unit 23 and Fishers Island Sound. All of the
unit owners at Latimer are organized as the association, and
the association is governed by a board of directors (board).
The association, pursuant to Article XIV of its bylaws, has
in place an Architectural Control Committee (committee) that
is staffed and managed by volunteers.
Because of extensive storm damage to unit 7, the Modugnos
applied for approval from the committee to build a new home,
elevated in height, to meet the new Federal Emergency
Management Agency building standards and the town of
Stoningtons zoning regulations. The plaintiff objected to
the application on the ground [191 Conn.App. 771] that the
new home would interfere substantially with his water view,
by obstructing that view by more than the 10 percent allowed
under the bylaws. In particular, § 14.1.2 of the bylaws
provides, in relevant part, that the association "shall
ensure that no members water view shall ever be diminished
by more than 10 [percent] due to cumulative constructions of
other units and/or the association, without the written
consent of such member(s) .... In the event any units water
view is increased by action pursuant to [§ ] 14.2, or other
means, such increase shall be included in the 10 [percent]
determination." Section 14.2 provides, in relevant part,
that "in order to reasonably ...