Opinion
No. CV04-4000579
February 10, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff, James J. Wiltzius, has brought three appeals from decisions of the defendant, New Milford zoning board of appeals (the ZBA). The New Milford zoning enforcement officer had issued zoning permits and zoning certificates of compliance to the co-defendant Garden Homes Management Corporation (Garden Homes) for replacement of mobile manufactured homes at its mobile home park, Candle Hill Mobile Home Park (Candle Hill Park). The plaintiff brought administrative appeals to the ZBA from the issuance of the permits and certificates. The ZBA approved the actions of the zoning enforcement officer. These three appeals involve the issuance of permits or certificates of compliance for eleven sites at Candle Hill Park in the four years from 2001, through 2004. The plaintiff contends that the ZBA acted arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion by condoning the permits and certificates of compliance issued by the zoning enforcement officer. He wants the ZBA to void the permits and certificates of zoning compliance. The plaintiff has not sought injunctive relief in these three appeals.
New Milford's zoning regulations prohibit the enlargement of nonconformities. The plaintiff claims that the ZBA violated the New Milford zoning regulations by issuing permits and certificates allowing the enlargement of nonconforming uses and structures at Candle Hill Park. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's appeals to the ZBA were not timely because he had notice of the issuance of permits more than thirty days before initiating his appeals. They also argue that issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance is not appealable. The defendants claim that the replacement of a dilapidated mobile manufactured home at a nonconforming mobile home park is allowed in Connecticut. Indeed, such replacement is necessary to maintain the economic viability of the mobile home park and the health and safety of its residents. They claim that, because new mobile homes are no longer manufactured at the narrow widths of older mobile manufactured homes, older homes can only be replaced by slightly wider mobile manufactured homes. The defendants argue that public policy favors the replacement of dilapidated mobile manufactured homes with new homes. They characterize the larger size of the new homes as de minimus. After trial on October 17, 2005, the parties submitted supplemental trial briefs by October 31, 2005.
FACTS
Candle Hill Park was established in 1965. When zoning regulations were first enacted in New Milford in 1971, there were one hundred and two mobile manufactured homes on three parcels of land totaling approximately twenty-seven acres. The new 1971 zoning regulations put the Candle Hill Park site in R-60 and R-80 zones (single house lots with minimum lot sizes of 60,000 square feet and 80,000 square feet). Because a mobile home park was not a permitted use in such zones, Candle Hill Park immediately did not conform to the zoning regulations. Co-defendant Sixth Garden Park Limited Partnership, with its subsidiary Garden Homes, purchased Candle Hill Park in 1990. Candle Hill Park is not a one hundred-and-two-lot subdivision. Each mobile home occupies, however, a designated space within the park. The mobile homes sit on concrete slabs, are anchored by cables, and have utility hookups.
The ZBA's treatment of mobile home replacements at Candle Hill Park sites has been inconsistent. In 2001, and early 2002, the New Milford zoning enforcement officer issued permits to Garden Homes for the replacement of five mobile manufactured homes. When Garden Homes applied for a sixth permit late in the summer of 2002, the zoning department informed Garden Homes that a variance would be required in future before a permit could issue. Garden Homes duly sought a variance. The ZBA granted the variance application on September 18, 2002, for replacement of the mobile manufactured home at 12 Shadow Lane. The zoning enforcement officer then issued that sixth permit on October 16, 2002.
Ready to seek three more permits in the fall of 2003, Garden Homes made another variance application. On October 15, 2003, the ZBA issued a blanket variance to Garden Homes to allow future replacement of mobile manufactured homes at Candle Hill Park. The ZBA failed to require notice of the variance application to abutting property owners. The ZBA failed to publish notice of the granting of the blanket variance. On October 27, 2003, the zoning enforcement officer issued the seventh, eighth and ninth permits. On February 23, 2004, the zoning enforcement officer issued the tenth and eleventh permits for replacement of mobile manufactured homes. It is the replacement of mobile homes for all eleven sites that is at issue in these appeals.
The residence owned and occupied by the plaintiff since his purchase in 1999, is located at 14 Sherman Road. It abuts one parcel of the Candle Hill Park property and lies within one hundred feet of the other two parcels. In February 2004, the plaintiff saw some site work and a couple of new mobile manufactured homes being installed at Candle Hill Park where older mobile manufactured homes had been removed. The homes were taller and wider than the homes they were replacing. The old homes were ten feet wide and were flat-roofed; the new homes are fourteen feet wide and have sloped roofs. From his vantage point, the plaintiff did not identify precise street addresses within Candle Hill Park for the new construction.
The plaintiff is an attorney practicing law in the state of New York. Although the New Milford land use offices were open to the public and to the plaintiff in March 2004, the plaintiff did not go to the zoning office to look for permits allowing construction at Candle Hill Park. Had he done so, he would have discovered nine of the eleven permits for replacement homes issued by the zoning enforcement officer between August 13, 2001, and February 23, 2004. The New Milford zoning office had misfiled the permits issued December 6, 2001, for 11 Shadow Lane and July 30, 2002, for 10 Tallow Lane. The plaintiff would not have discovered those two permits. Those two permits could not reasonably have been found by an inquiring member of the public. The plaintiff attended the ZBA monthly meeting on March 17, 2004, where he learned about the blanket variance. He initiated no appeals to the ZBA within thirty days of sighting construction activity at Candle Hill Park.
On April 1, 2004, the plaintiff petitioned the ZBA to rescind the blanket variance and declare that variance void from its inception. He also filed a freedom of information request at the New Milford zoning office. On April 7, 2004, he received copies of nine of the eleven permits. On April 8, 2004, the plaintiff appealed the zoning enforcement officer's issuance of the nine permits. At its meeting on April 26, 2004, the ZBA rescinded the blanket variance.
The plaintiff brought a complaint and motion for temporary injunction to the Superior Court on April 16, 2004, concerning seven of the eleven permits. Wiltzius v. Garden Homes Management Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 009934 (May 24, 2004, Brunetti, J.). In its decision, the court noted that two of the seven new homes were already in place, in possession of certificates of occupancy and sold. Wiltzius v. Garden Homes Management Corp., supra, Superior Court, Docket No CV 04 009934. Four more of the seven homes, were placed on lots, but had not yet been issued certificates of zoning compliance and certificates of occupancy. At the seventh location, 15 Duncan Lane, Garden Homes had completed the site preparations, but had not yet taken delivery on a new mobile manufactured home. The court allowed Garden Homes to finish installation and get certificates of occupancy to sell the four new mobile manufactured homes that were already placed at Candle Hill Park. The court temporarily enjoined Garden Homes from placing a new mobile manufactured home at 15 Duncan Lane and any additional sites. Wiltzius v. Garden Homes Management Corp., supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV 04 009934. In June 2004, the zoning enforcement officer issued certificates of compliance for the four new homes that had been designated for completion and sale.
At the end of May 2004, the New Milford zoning office discovered the misfiled permits for the replacement of mobile manufactured homes located at 11 Shadow Lane and 10 Tallow Lane. Within thirty days thereafter, the plaintiff appealed those two permits to the ZBA. He also appealed the issuance of the four certificates of zoning compliance.
By the summer of 2004, the ZBA had received appeals from the plaintiff on all eleven zoning permits issued to Garden Homes from August 2001, through February 2004. The appeals of the four certificates of compliance for 4 Wicker Lane, 18 Tallow Lane, 17 Victory Lane and 16 Tallow Lane were still pending. Those four homes had been finished and sold as allowed by the court. Wiltzius v. Garden Homes Management Corp., supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV 04 009934. At its July 21, 2004 meeting, the ZBA overturned the zoning enforcement officer's issuance of the zoning permit for 15 Duncan Lane as well as the issuance of the zoning permits for those four sites that had recently been completed. At its November 17, 2004 meeting, the ZBA upheld the zoning enforcement officer's issuance of certificates of zoning compliance for those same four sites. The plaintiff has appealed the latter decision to the Superior Court. At its meetings of July 21, and November 17, 2004, the ZBA approved the zoning enforcement officer's issuance of zoning permits for the other six sites. The plaintiff has appealed those actions as well.
The eleven sites in question are as follows:
1. 21 Duncan Lane. Permit 370-01 issued August 13, 2001, to replace a 12 x 65-foot mobile manufactured home and 8 x 8-foot addition (844 total square feet) with a 16 x 80-foot (1280 square feet) mobile manufactured home. Permit upheld at July 21, 2004 ZBA meeting. Not named in the injunction decision.
2. 11 Shadow Lane. Permit 523-01 issued December 6, 2001, to replace a 12 x 65-foot home (780 square feet) with a 14 x 60-foot (840 square feet) home. Permit lost in zoning office, but rediscovered at the end of May 2004. Permit upheld at November 17, 2004 ZBA meeting. Not named in the injunction decision.
3. 1 Victory Lane. Permit 524-01 issued December 6, 2001, to install a 14 x 66-foot mobile manufactured home. Size of prior home is not described in the permit. Permit upheld at July 21, 2004 ZBA meeting. Replaced and sold prior to the injunction decision.
4. 19 Duncan Lane. Permit 525-01 issued December 6, 2001, to install a 14 x 60-foot mobile manufactured home. Size of the prior home is not described in the permit. Permit upheld at July 21, 2004 ZBA meeting. Not named in the injunction decision.
5. 10 Tallow Lane. Permit 351-02 issued July 30, 2002, to replace a 12 x 64-foot home (768 square feet) with a 14 x 60-foot home (840 square feet). Permit lost in zoning office, but rediscovered at the end of May 2004. Permit upheld at November 17, 2004 ZBA meeting. Not named in the injunction decision.
6. 12 Shadow Lane. Permit 426-02 issued October 16, 2002, to replace a 10 x 50-foot (500 square feet) home with a 14 x 60-foot (840 square feet) home. Permit upheld at July 21, 2004 ZBA meeting. Replaced and sold prior to the injunction decision.
7 8. 4 Wicker Lane and 18 Tallow Lane. Permits 445-03 and 446-03 issued October 27, 2003, to install 13.4 x 52-foot mobile manufactured homes, together with 150-square-foot decks. Size of the prior homes is not described in the permits. Completion and sale allowed by injunction decision. Certificates of zoning compliance issued June 30, 2004. Homes were sold. Permits overturned at July 21, 2004 ZBA meeting. Certificates of zoning compliance upheld at November 17, 2004 ZBA meeting.
9. 17 Victory Lane. Permit 447-03 issued October 27, 2003, to install a 13.4 x 48-foot mobile manufactured home, together with a 150-square-foot deck. Size of the prior home is not described in the permit. Completion and sale allowed by injunction decision. Certificate of zoning compliance issued June 30, 2004. Home was sold. Permit overturned at July 21, 2004 ZBA meeting. Certificate of zoning compliance upheld at November 17, 2004 ZBA meeting.
10. 15 Duncan Lane. Permit 47-04 issued February 23, 2004. Site work completed, but installation of home enjoined. Permit overturned at July 21, 2004 ZBA meeting. No replacement as yet.
11. 16 Tallow Lane. Permit 48-04 issued February 25, 2004, to install a 13.4 x 52-foot mobile manufactured home together with a 150-square-foot deck. Size of the prior home is not described in the permit. Completion and sale allowed by injunction decision. Certificate of zoning compliance issued June 11, 2004. Home was sold. Permit overturned at July 21, 2004 ZBA meeting. Certificate of zoning compliance upheld at November 17, 2004 ZBA meeting.
Additional facts will be provided as needed.
DISCUSSION
To maintain an action before the Superior Court appealing the decision of a zoning board of appeals, a plaintiff must show that he is aggrieved by that decision. Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 Conn. 184, 192, 676 A.2d 831 (1996). "Two broad yet distinct categories of aggrievement exist, classical and statutory . . . [I]n cases of statutory aggrievement, particular legislation grants standing to those who claim injury to an interest protected by that legislation." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 486-87, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003). General Statutes § 8-8(a) identifies an aggrieved person as one "owning land which abuts or is within a radius of one hundred feet of any portion of the land involved in any decision of [a zoning board of appeals.]" For purposes of statutory aggrievement the relevant consideration is not whether the plaintiff's property is within one hundred feet of specific mobile home locations within the park, but whether it is within one hundred feet of the undivided Candle Hill Park property. Caltabiano v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 211 Conn. 662, 560 A.2d 975 (1989). As an owner of a residence abutting the Candle Hill Park property, Wiltzius qualifies for statutory aggrievement.
The standard for Superior Court review of the actions of a zoning board of appeals is well established; the court must decide whether the zoning board of appeals acted arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion. Schwartz v. Planning Zoning Commission, 208 Conn. 146, 152, 543 A.2d 1339 (1988). The zoning board of appeals holds a de novo review of the actions of the zoning enforcement officer. The court reviews the decision of the zoning board of appeals based on the record. Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 15 Conn.App. 729, 732, 546 A.2d 919 (1988), aff'd 211 Conn. 76 (1989). The plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the board acted improperly. Horvath v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 163 Conn. 609, 316 A.2d 418 (1972).
This court must consider three issues:
1. Were the zoning permit appeals to the ZBA timely?
2. Were the certificates of zoning compliance appealable to the ZBA?
3. Did the ZBA act in derogation of the New Milford zoning regulations by allowing the enlargement of nonconformities in the form of wider and taller replacement mobile manufactured homes?
I
An aggrieved person may appeal the official actions of a zoning enforcement officer to the zoning board of appeals. General Statutes § 8-7. The appeal may only be taken, however, within time limits established by the zoning board of appeals. § 8-7. The New Milford ZBA has established no specific time limit. In the absence of an appeal period adopted by the board, the appeal period is thirty days. § 8-7. The appeal period commences, not upon the issuance of a zoning permit, but upon notice to the aggrieved person that such a permit has issued. It is a fundamental principle that "without notice that a decision has been reached, the right to appeal from that decision is meaningless." Munroe v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 261 Conn. 263, 271, 802 A.2d 55 (2002), on remand, 75 Conn.App. 796, 818 A.2d 72 (2003). General Statutes § 8-7 provides in relevant part: "Such appeal period shall commence for an aggrieved person at the earliest of the following: (1) Upon receipt of the order, requirement or decision from which such person may appeal, (2) upon publication of a notice in accordance with subsection (f) of section 8-3, or (3) upon actual or constructive notice of such order, requirement or decision."
The plaintiff received copies of nine zoning permits for Candle Hill Park on April 7, 2004, in response to his freedom of information request. He appealed to the ZBA within thirty days thereafter. He asserts that April 7, 2004, was the date that the thirty-day appeal period commenced. The defendants claim that the plaintiff had constructive notice of the permits in February of 2004, when he saw construction at Candle Hill Park. The court agrees with the defendants. It is difficult to imagine any more literal form that constructive notice could take. Observation of site preparation work and the erection of structures at an adjacent property constitute constructive notice that the zoning department has acted. Munroe v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 261 Conn. 273 (observation of demolition of a neighbor's garage roof was sufficient notice of official action by the zoning enforcement officer). Because of the statutory time limitation for appeal, a neighbor does not have the luxury of delay. The limitations statute brooks no exception for freedom of information requests. As to the nine zoning permits that were properly filed and available to public scrutiny at the zoning office, the appeals by the plaintiff to the ZBA were not timely. The ZBA therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the issuance of those nine permits.
As to the permits for 11 Shadow Lane and 10 Tallow Lane, the ZBA incorrectly determined that the appeals were not timely. Those two permits had been misplaced in the zoning office and were not reasonably discoverable by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed within thirty days of actual notice of the existence of those two permits. His appeal to the Superior Court was timely after the ZBA upheld the issuance of those permits at its meeting on November 17, 2004.
II
Because appeals of the permits for 4 Wicker Lane, 18 Tallow Lane, 17 Victory Lane and 16 Tallow Lane were not timely, the ZBA did not have jurisdiction to sustain or overrule those permits. The Superior Court decision of May 24, 2004, specifically addressed the status of those four lots. Wiltzius v. Garden Homes Management Corp., supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV 04 009934. That decision endorsed the completion and sale of the four units. Following that decision, Garden Homes finished the installation of new mobile manufactured homes in accordance with the four permits issued October 27, 2003, and February 23, 2004. The zoning enforcement officer issued the four certificates of compliance on June 30, 2004. The plaintiff then appealed the issuance of the certificates of zoning compliance. The units were sold. On July 21, 2004, the ZBA voted to sustain the appeals relating to the issuance of the zoning permits. The ZBA cited its rescinding of the blanket variance on April 21, 2004, as its reason for sustaining the appeals. On November 17, 2004, the ZBA upheld the issuance of the certificates of zoning compliance.
In New Milford, the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance is essentially a ministerial act by the zoning enforcement officer. It is not a decision to allow construction, but a statement certifying that the permitted work has been completed. New Milford Zoning Regulations § 015-010. The certificate of compliance paves the way for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy from the building department. It is not necessary for this court to decide whether an appeal may lie from the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance when the project has not been completed properly. The plaintiff does not claim that the new mobile manufactured homes differ from those described in the permits. His claim is that the permits should not have issued in the first place. He asserts that the certificates of zoning compliance were based on an improper foundation.
In some towns the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance is the first step for a structural renovation requiring a building permit. In New Milford the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance is, however, the last step after work has been done.
The permits were valid because the appeals were not timely. To allow an appeal of a ministerial certificate of compliance on the ground that the zoning permit should never have issued would circumvent the intent and purpose of the statutory time limit for appeal. It is really the zoning permits, not the certificates of compliance, which the plaintiff wishes to appeal. Having found that the permits cannot be attacked, the court cannot find a factual predicate for the claim that the certificates of zoning compliance were improper. Munroe v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 261 Conn. 274. The plaintiff may not appeal the certificates of zoning compliance on the facts of this case.
III
A mobile manufactured home is "a detached residential unit having three-dimensional components which are intrinsically mobile with or without a wheeled chassis or a detached residential unit built on or after June 15, 1976, in accordance with federal manufactured home construction and safety standards, and, in either case, . . . designed for long-term occupancy and to be placed on rigid supports at the site where it is to be occupied as a residence, complete and ready for occupancy, except for minor and incidental unpacking and assembly operations and connection to utilities systems . . ." General Statutes § 21-64(1). The terms "mobile home" and "mobile manufactured home" are interchangeable. General Statutes § 21-64a. Mobile manufactured homes are not self-propelled. They are not recreational vehicles, motor homes, or house trailers. Farrior v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 70 Conn.App. 86, 796 A.2d 1262 (2002).
Many of the mobile homes at Candle Hill Park pre-date the June 15, 1976 adoption of national construction standards. Before the imposition of national standards, mobile homes tended to be long and narrow with flat roofs. The old mobile homes at 11 Shadow Lane (12 x 65 feet) and 10 Tallow Lane (12 x 64 feet) were typical sizes prior to the national manufactured home standards. The permit applications for those two locations seek to replace the long, narrow mobile homes with homes of 14 x 60 feet. The net result would be new homes with larger square footage. In addition, the new homes would have sloped roofs. The new homes would be taller than those they replace.
The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. et seq.) required the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to establish uniform standards. The Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards promulgated pursuant to the Act appear at 24 CFR 3280, effective June 15, 1976.
The Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards at 24 CFR 3280 do not specify minimum lengths, widths or roof slopes for new mobile manufactured homes. Specification of minimum room dimensions, ceiling heights, roof trusses and roof load tests have, nevertheless, as a practical matter, brought about the demise of ten-foot-wide mobile manufactured homes. There is no evidence in the ZBA record or evidence presented to the court to show that mobile manufactured homes are no longer available in the twelve-foot widths or flat roofs.
Mobile home parks are licensed and regulated in Connecticut. General Statutes §§ 21-64 through 21-86. The statutes impose obligations on park owners and owners of individual homes within mobile home parks to maintain safe and healthful conditions. General Statutes § 21-82. The Department of Consumer Protection inspects mobile home parks for compliance with state law. General Statutes § 21-67. A mobile manufactured home advisory council was created by the legislature to review the needs of park owners and residents so as to promote mobile homes as a lifestyle option in Connecticut. General Statutes § 21-84b.
General Statutes § 21-84b states: "The advisory council shall monitor the implementation of statutes and regulations affecting mobile manufactured homes, promote mobile manufactured homes in the state, conduct a public education program to improve public perception and local acceptance of mobile manufactured homes and promote them as affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary housing, and study additional issues related to mobile manufactured homes."
Although the state of Connecticut has developed rules and oversight mechanisms to protect the health and safety of mobile home residents, the legislature has not chosen to protect mobile manufactured home parks from being zoned out of existence. General Statutes § 8-2 enables local zoning boards to adopt regulations allowing or prohibiting particular uses in particular zones. "That zoning regulations forbidding the operation of trailer parks in residential zones are valid, proper and constitutional except perhaps under very exceptional circumstances, is settled law." Jensen's, Inc. v. Plainville, 146 Conn. 311, 314, 150 A.2d 297 (1959). The General Assembly may have enacted one of the "very exceptional circumstances" in 2002, when it recognized mobile manufactured homes in mobile home parks as a source of affordable housing. General Statutes § 8-30g(k). That statute allows municipalities to count mobile homes as affordable housing if the homes are subject to certain deed restrictions on rental and sale prices. There is no evidence that the residences proposed for Candle Hill Park have the requisite deed restrictions. The preferential treatment of the affordable housing statutes does not apply to 11 Shadow Lane or 10 Tallow Lane.
"Mobile manufactured home park" and "mobile home park" are the terms used today in lieu of the Supreme Court's use of the term "trailer park" in 1959.
The New Milford Zoning Regulations § 170-030 provides that mobile home parks and the use of mobile manufactured homes for human occupancy are permitted only in enumerated zones, including the R-20 residential zone, the multiple residence zone, two business zones and an industrial zone; R-60 and R-80 zones are not among the zones allowing mobile homes and mobile home parks. The New Milford Zoning Regulations § 010-160(8) states: "Uses of land, buildings or structures not clearly permitted in the various zoning districts are prohibited." Our Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld such regulations. Town of Enfield v. Enfield Shade Tobacco, LLC, 265 Conn. 376, 381, 828 A.2d 596 (2003); Planning and Zoning Commission of Lebanon v. Gilbert, CT Page 2890 208 Conn. 696, 708, 546 A.2d 823 (1988); Gada v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 46, 48, 193 A.2d 502 (1963). As a mobile home park in R-60 and R-80 zones, Candle Hill Park is a nonconforming use. Since mobile manufactured homes are not permitted for human occupancy in R-60 and R-80 zones, the mobile homes themselves are nonconforming structures.
Section 015-010 of the New Milford Zoning Regulations gives an expansive definition of "structure." A "structure" is: "Anything constructed or erected, including a building, the use of which requires location on or under the ground or attachment to something having location on the ground." The definition does not require that the construction take place on site. Mobile homes are located on the ground and are attached to concrete slabs and utility hookups located on the ground. The mobile manufactured homes at Candle Hill Park qualify as structures within the meaning of the New Milford Zoning Regulations.
Nonconformities are protected in Connecticut. General Statutes § 8-2. That statute provides in relevant part that local zoning regulations "shall not prohibit the continuance of any nonconforming use, building or structure existing at the time of the adoption of such regulations." A town may regulate a nonconforming use under its police powers, but "the rule concerning the continuance of a nonconforming use protects the `right' of a user to continue the same use of the property as it existed before the date of the adoption of the zoning regulations." Helbig v. Zoning Commission, 185 Conn. 294, 306, 440 A.2d 940 (1981). An improved and more efficient mobile manufactured home may replace an existing mobile home in a nonconforming mobile home park, when the use and scope of the replacement are unchanged. Lampasona v. Planning Zoning Commission, 6 Conn.App. 237, 239, 504 A.2d 554 (1986). This is so because the mobile manufactured home is merely the instrumentality utilized in pursuit of the nonconforming use. Lampasona v. Planning Zoning Commission, supra, 6 Conn.App. 239. "The replacement, therefore, is constitutionally protected." Lampasona, Id. A mobile manufactured home in a nonconforming mobile home park may be replaced as of right, whether dilapidated or not, so long as the nonconformity is not increased.
The New Milford zoning regulations adhere to well established principles of law barring enlargement or extension of nonconforming uses and structures. New Milford Zoning Regulations §§ 160-020.1, 160-030.1. "It is a general principle of zoning that nonconforming uses should be abolished or reduced to conformity as quickly as the fair interest of the parties will permit." Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc., 234 Conn. 221, 242, 662, A.2d 1179 (1995), on remand, injunction granted by Brickley v. Waste Management, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. CV92 0060522 (Nov. 7, 1995, Gill, J.), aff'd 239 Conn. 515, 686 A.2d 481 (1996). Local zoning boards may regulate both conforming and nonconforming uses. Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc., supra, 234 Conn. 243. New Milford has chosen not to protect nonconforming mobile manufactured parks or homes from its zoning regulations that forbid enlargement. There is no exception in the zoning regulations for enlargements characterized as de minimus by the permit applicant. "The words used in zoning ordinances are to be interpreted according to their usual and natural meaning and the regulations should not be extended, by implication, beyond their expressed terms." Schwartz v. Planning Zoning Commission, supra, 208 Conn. 153. When a mobile manufactured home is a nonconforming structure, the constitutional right to replace the mobile home does not confer a right to expand the footprint or raise the height. The ZBA did not have the discretion to disregard the strictures of the zoning regulations and allow zoning permits for enlargement of the nonconforming mobile homes at 11 Shadow Lane and 10 Tallow Lane. By approving the zoning enforcement officer's issuance of those two permits, the ZBA acted illegally.
The zoning regulations of at least one town in Connecticut, North Stonington, allow, or even require, that replacement of a nonconforming mobile manufactured home be "equal in size or greater than the existing mobile home." Lampasona v. Planning Zoning Commission, supra, 6 Conn.App. 240, n. 3.
CONCLUSION
The plaintiff had constructive notice in February 2004, of the zoning permits for 21 Duncan Lane, 1 Victory Lane, 19 Duncan Lane, 12 Shadow Lane, 4 Wicker Lane, 18 Tallow Lane, 17 Victory Lane, 15 Duncan Lane and 16 Tallow Lane. The plaintiff's appeals to the ZBA in April 2004 were not timely. The ZBA did not have jurisdiction to entertain those appeals. Because the appeals of certificates of zoning compliance for 4 Wicker Lane, 18 Tallow Lane, 17 Victory Lane and 16 Tallow Lane depended upon the claim of improper permits for those four locations, the plaintiff's appeal of those certificates to the ZBA was without merit.
The zoning permits for 11 Shadow Lane and 10 Tallow Lane should have been overturned by the ZBA. Even if the plaintiff had witnessed those two units being replaced, a reasonable search of the land use records would not have resulted in a discovery of the issuance of permits. Because the zoning office had misfiled or misplaced those permits, the plaintiff could not know that those permits had ever existed. When he learned that Garden Homes was working on replacements for those two units, the plaintiff could reasonably have believed, and apparently did believe, that they were being replaced without the benefit of permits from the zoning enforcement officer. His appeal was timely after notice of the existence of the permits. Because the zoning regulations for New Milford do not allow enlargements of nonconforming uses or structures, permits allowing such enlargements in derogation of the regulations are illegal. Judgment shall enter for the defendants on nine of the eleven replacements. Judgment shall enter for the plaintiff sustaining his appeal on the replacement permits at 11 Shadow Lane and 10 Tallow Lane. The decision of the ZBA to uphold the permits for those two lots is reversed. The defendant ZBA is ordered to sustain the appeals of the plaintiff as to those two permits and void the permits.