## Facts

- Meriden owned a 138-acre tract located in Wallingford; most of the tract was used for sewage lagoons, and a smaller area was used for solid waste disposal.
- Wallingford zoning regulations adopted in 1958 placed the tract in a rural district where sewage-treatment facilities and garbage dumps were not permitted, but existing nonconforming uses could continue.
- In 1983, Wallingford created an aquifer protection district that included the tract and expressly prohibited solid waste disposal within the district.
- In 1988, Meriden and the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) leased part of the tract for disposal of ash/residue and other solid wastes from a regional waste-to-energy facility.
- The tract was considered a suspected source of contamination of Wallingford’s water supply, and a regional planning recommendation called for suspending solid waste disposal over the aquifer.
- Meriden and CRRA applied to delete the aquifer-district prohibition on solid waste disposal; after public hearings, the planning and zoning commission retained the prohibition to protect drinking water and implement the town plan of development.
- Meriden and CRRA later sought a certificate of zoning compliance; the zoning enforcement officer denied it, concluding that solid waste disposal was a nonconforming use that had been unlawfully expanded beyond the limited area historically used.
- Meriden appealed to the zoning board of appeals, which upheld the enforcement officer’s denial.
- The Superior Court reversed both the commission and the board, finding insufficient support for the commission’s action and concluding the nonconforming use had not been unlawfully expanded.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for the zoning board of appeals by overturning the board’s finding that solid waste disposal was a limited nonconforming use that had been unlawfully expanded.
2. Whether the trial court improperly overturned the planning and zoning commission’s legislative decision to retain the aquifer-district prohibition on solid waste disposal.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and reinstated the zoning authorities’ decisions.
- The Court held that substantial evidence supported the zoning board’s determination that solid waste disposal in 1958 existed only on a limited portion of the tract and that later use of additional areas constituted an unlawful expansion of the nonconforming use.
- The Court held that substantial evidence supported the commission’s legislative decision to retain the aquifer-protection ban on solid waste disposal to protect drinking water and implement the town plan of development.
- The Court ruled that the Superior Court erred by reweighing evidence and substituting its judgment for that of local zoning authorities.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of local zoning decisions is deferential; courts may not substitute their judgment for zoning authorities if the decision is reasonably supported by the record and within the authority’s power.
- A nonconforming use is limited to the actual use existing when the zoning restriction took effect, and it is narrowly construed; intent to use a broader area does not expand the protected scope absent actual use.
- Expansion of a nonconforming use into new areas of a property, or a material change in the character of use, may constitute an unlawful extension.
- Municipalities may, through zoning regulations, prohibit solid waste disposal in aquifer protection districts as a reasonable measure to protect groundwater and public health when supported by planning materials and hearing evidence.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Wallingford’s aquifer-district prohibition on solid waste disposal and upheld the finding that Meriden and CRRA’s proposed ash and solid-waste activities unlawfully expanded a limited nonconforming use, emphasizing deference to local zoning authorities when their decisions are supported by the record.


Conn. Res. Recovery Auth. v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n of Wallingford, 225 Conn. 731, 626 A.2d 705 (1993)