You asked us to briefly summarize Hoagland v. ZBA of Noank Fire District (1 Conn. App. 285 (1984)).

FACTS

In Hoagland, the Appellate Court specified when courts must uphold a zoning decision about whether a legal nonconforming use had been abandoned. The case arose when a zoning enforcement officer cited Hoagland for illegally operating an outdoor boat storage business in an area zoned for residential uses only. He appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), claiming, among other things, that his business was a legal nonconforming use of the property. A use is nonconforming if it does not comply with the zoning regulations. It is legal only if it existed before the town adopted those regulations. A legal nonconforming use becomes illegal when an owner or operator intentionally discontinues or abandons it.

ZBA DECISION AND RATIONALE

The ZBA disagreed, that even if such a business had been a legal nonconforming use at one time, Hoagland had intentionally abandoned it. Although no direct evidence of Hoagland's intent was introduced at the ZBA hearing, intent could be inferred from circumstantial evidence. For example, there was no dispute that Hoagland had received a permit to reposition an existing nonconforming building before he was cited for operating his boat storage business. But neither his application nor the permit itself listed operating a boat storage business among the permitted uses. Hoagland then lost his subsequent superior and appellate court appeals.

COURT DECISION AND RATIONALE

The Appellate Court stated the controlling rule this way: “Whether there was an intention permanently to relinquish a nonconforming use is a factual inference arising from all the circumstances and is not reviewable unless it could not reasonably have been drawn” (p. 290). The trial court had also applied that rule and reached the same conclusion. Both courts found that enough evidence had been presented to the ZBA to support its finding that any previously existing legal nonconforming use of the property for boat storage had been intentionally abandoned.

Other courts have applied this rule to decide cases involving other land use issues. For example, in Molic v. ZBA of the Town of Redding the Appellate court had to determine whether the trial court had erroneously overturned the ZBA's determination that the previous owner of several contiguous parcels did not intend to merge them (18 Conn. App. 159 (1989)). Citing Hoagland, the appeals court held that the trial court's failure to defer to the board's determination as to the owner's intent was improper.

JR: ro