Argued
February 13, 2019.
Page 1016
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 1017
Appeal
from the decision by the named defendant granting the
application of the defendant Pasquale Pisano for approval of
the location of a used car dealer on certain real property,
brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New
Britain and transferred to the judicial district of
Stamford-Norwalk, where the matter was tried to the court,
Hon. Taggart D. Adams, judge trial referee; judgment denying
the plaintiff's appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed
to this court.
COUNSEL:
Jeffrey P. Nichols, with whom was John W. Knuff, for the
appellant (plaintiff).
James
V. Minor, special corporation counsel, with whom was Kathryn
Emmett, director of legal affairs, for the appellee (named
defendant).
Gerald
M. Fox III, for the appellees (defendant Pasquale Pisano et
al.).
Sheldon, Elgo and Lavery, Js.[*] . LAVERY, J. In this
opinion the other judges concurred.
OPINION
Page 1018
[192
Conn.App. 277] LAVERY, J.
The
plaintiff, One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC, appeals from the
judgment of the Superior Court denying its appeal from the
decision of the defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City
of Stamford [192 Conn.App. 278] (board), approving the
application of the defendant Pasquale Pisano (defendant) to
locate the defendant used car business, Pisano Brothers
Automotive, Inc. (Pisano Brothers), at 86 Elmcroft Road in
Stamford. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court
improperly (1) determined that the defendant had standing to
apply to the board for approval of the application, (2)
upheld the board's decision, despite the board's
failure to review the application in accordance with General
Statutes § 14-55,[1] and (3) searched beyond the
board's stated reason for approval of the
application.[2] We disagree with the
plaintiff's first claim but agree with the
plaintiff's second and third claims. Accordingly, we
reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.
The
following facts and procedural history are relevant. Pisano
Brothers is the lessee of the 6500 square foot parcel located
at 86 Elmcroft Road in Stamford (property), in a General
Industrial (M-G) zone. The plaintiff owns abutting property
at 126 Elmcroft Road.
In
June, 2016, the defendant, on behalf of Pisano Brothers,
applied for a used car dealer license from the Department of
Motor Vehicles, listing himself as vice president and his
brother as president. Pursuant to General Statutes § 14-54, a
license for " dealing in or repairing motor
vehicles" requires a " certificate of approval of
the location" (certificate of approval) from the
appropriate local board. Accordingly, the defendant
additionally applied to the board for its approval of a
" used car dealer" on the M-G zoned property
(Pisano application).
[192
Conn.App. 279] The board referred the Pisano application to
various city agencies and boards. The record contains
advisements from the Planning Board of the City of Stamford
(planning board) and the Engineering Bureau of the City of
Stamford (engineering bureau). In a letter to the board dated
September 8, 2016, the planning board " unanimously
recommended denial of [the Pisano application]," opining
" that the proposed application does not keep with the
character of the neighborhood and . . . [is] not consistent
with the 2015 Master Plan Category #9 (Urban
Mixed-Use)." The engineering bureau advised that it
found the proposal " will not result in any adverse
drainage impacts" and, further, that approval of the
Pisano application should be conditioned on the installation
of a " [n]ew concrete curb and sidewalk . . . along the
frontage of the property."
On
September 14, 2016, the board held a public hearing on the
Pisano application. The board posed several questions to the
defendant and his attorney, Gerald M. Fox III. Two
individuals spoke against the Pisano application. They were
concerned about the inability to conceal the building and
parking lot on the property with fencing, the lack of
sidewalks, and the potential for a crowded parking lot. The
plaintiff did
Page 1019
not offer comment. The board, during its deliberations, noted
that the defendant seemed amenable to complying with various
conditions of approval that would make the property
compatible with the local neighborhood. The board unanimously
voted to approve the Pisano application. Subsequently, on
September 29, 2016, the board issued a letter to the
defendant, stating its approval and setting forth several
conditions.
Pursuant to General Statutes § 14-57 and the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-183
et seq., the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. The
plaintiff advanced three claims: (1) the defendant was not a
proper party and lacked standing [192 Conn.App. 280] to apply
to the board for location approval, (2) the board did not
comply with hearing notice requirements, and (3) the board
failed to conduct the requisite suitability analysis, as
prescribed in § 14-55. As to the first two claims, the court
disagreed. As to the third claim, the court agreed with the
plaintiff's argument that § 14-55 applied and further
acknowledged that " the board's certificate of
approval looks and reads like a variance." Upon its
review of the transcript from the September 14, 2016 public
hearing, however, the court concluded that the board,
nonetheless, gave due consideration to the suitability of the
proposed use. It, therefore, reasoned that the board's
decision was akin to an approval under §
14-55.[3] Accordingly, ...