## Facts

- James and Darlene Dinan owned a two-family dwelling in Stratford, Connecticut, located in a single-family residence zone.
- The property remained lawful as a nonconforming two-family use, but the owners did not live on the premises.
- Each floor was occupied by five unrelated individuals who rented separate bedrooms and shared kitchen and bathroom facilities.
- The property provided 11 marked parking spaces for occupants.
- Stratford zoning regulations defined “family” as individuals “related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a single housekeeping unit.”
- The zoning enforcement officer classified the use as a “rooming house” and issued a cease-and-desist order.
- The Dinans appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, arguing the “family” definition exceeded statutory authority and violated state and federal constitutional guarantees.
- The Board upheld the enforcement order.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipal zoning regulation limiting “family” to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption is unauthorized by the Connecticut zoning enabling act as applied to two groups of five unrelated occupants.
2. Whether applying that definition to prohibit the Dinans’ occupancy arrangement violates substantive due process under the Connecticut Constitution.
3. Whether applying that definition violates equal protection under the Connecticut Constitution by treating unrelated cohabitants differently from related households.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded with direction to dismiss the Dinans’ administrative appeal.
- As applied to the Dinans’ property, the court held the “family” definition was within the zoning authority granted by the enabling act.
- The court held the regulation, as applied, did not violate substantive due process because it was rationally related to legitimate zoning objectives.
- The court held the regulation, as applied, did not violate equal protection because the related/unrelated distinction was not suspect and had a rational basis.
- The court relied on the specific living arrangement—multiple unrelated persons renting individual rooms with shared facilities—as resembling a rooming-house-type use.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality may define “family” for zoning purposes when the definition is reasonably related to legitimate goals such as controlling residential density and preserving neighborhood character.
- When no fundamental right or suspect class is implicated, state constitutional due process and equal protection challenges to zoning classifications are evaluated under rational basis review.
- A related/unrelated occupancy distinction may be justified by reasonable legislative judgments about increased likelihood of traffic, parking demand, noise, transience, and similar impacts associated with groups of unrelated occupants.
- An as-applied challenge turns on the specific facts of the occupancy arrangement; a room-by-room rental configuration can support treating the use as closer to a rooming house than a single housekeeping unit.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Stratford’s related-person definition of “family” as applied to a two-family dwelling operated with two groups of five unrelated room renters, concluding the regulation fell within delegated zoning authority and rationally furthered legitimate objectives without violating state due process or equal protection.


Dinan v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 595 A.2d 864 (Conn. 1991)