Dinan v. Board Of Zoning Appeals

595 A.2d 864 (1991)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps own a two-family house located in a single-family residence zone. The house satisfies the requirements for a legal nonconforming use as a residence for two families. In this instance, each of the two floors of the house is occupied by five unrelated persons, each occupant having a separate rental arrangement with Ps. Ps do not reside on the premises. The two floors of the building constitute separate apartments or housekeeping units within which the occupants share common cooking and bathroom facilities. There are eleven striped parking spaces on the property which are available to the ten occupants. On January 20, 1989, the Stratford zoning enforcement officer ordered Ps to cease using their property as a rooming house rather than as a residence for two families. Ps appealed this order to the board, claiming that the definition of 'family' in § 1.18 of the zoning regulations is unauthorized by the enabling act and violates the state and federal constitutions. The board denied the appeal and upheld the zoning enforcement officer in his interpretation of the regulations. The Superior Court sustained P's appeal, declaring the definition of 'family' in § 1.18 to be invalid as beyond the statutory zoning authority given to municipalities and violative of the state constitution. The regulations stated that a family is 'any number of individuals related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a single housekeeping unit.' The court held that this definition exceeded the authority conferred on municipalities to establish zoning districts; and violated the due process and equal protection clauses of our state constitution 'in that it discriminates against individuals based on biological or legal relationships.' D appealed.