## Facts

- Property owners held a two-story, commercially zoned building located within the Norwich historic district established under state historic-district statutes.
- The building was unoccupied and required repairs; municipal officials ordered structural and health-related work, including sewer connection.
- The owners sought to demolish the building and applied for a demolition permit, but were told a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic District Commission was required.
- The owners applied to the Commission; a public hearing drew substantial attendance, with no speakers supporting demolition other than the owners and counsel.
- Evidence at the hearing indicated the building, though not individually significant, functioned as a buffer screening the historic green from adjacent commercial uses.
- The owners presented cost evidence suggesting repairs would be expensive (approximately $15,000–$18,000) and argued surrounding commercial development reduced the property’s suitability and value.
- The Commission unanimously denied the certificate of appropriateness the day after the hearing.
- The trial court dismissed the owners’ administrative appeal; the owners then appealed further.

## Issues

1. Whether denying demolition approval in a historic district effected an unconstitutional taking or deprivation of property without just compensation.
2. Whether the enabling statutes and local ordinance authorized the Commission to regulate demolition through the certificate-of-appropriateness process.
3. Whether the Commission complied with statutory notice and hearing requirements for action on the application.
4. Whether the ordinance was invalid as vague or as an impermissible exercise of police power based solely on aesthetics.
5. Whether the denial was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion under the applicable standard of judicial review.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment dismissing the appeal and upheld the Commission’s denial.
- The court held that the Commission had statutory authority to treat demolition as work requiring a certificate of appropriateness.
- The court rejected the takings claim, concluding the owners failed to show the regulation deprived the property of reasonable economic value or use.
- The court held the ordinance was a valid exercise of the police power and was not impermissibly vague or grounded solely in aesthetics.
- The court found no procedural defect sufficient to invalidate the denial and concluded the Commission did not act illegally, arbitrarily, or in abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Historic-district regulation may lawfully serve public welfare objectives, including preserving the character and setting of historically significant areas, even when a particular structure is chiefly valuable as part of the district context.
- When authorized by statute and ordinance, demolition may be regulated as “work” requiring prior approval via a certificate of appropriateness.
- In regulatory takings analysis, the key inquiry is the extent of deprivation of reasonable use or value in light of the regulation’s purposes, not whether the owner can obtain the maximum economic return; the owner bears the burden of proof.
- Aesthetic considerations may be considered in historic-preservation regulation when tied to broader historic and architectural purposes; such regulation is not invalid merely because it involves aesthetic judgment, and it must provide sufficiently definite standards.
- Courts reviewing historic-district commission decisions do not substitute their judgment for the commission’s where the decision rests on a reasonable factual basis and complies with required procedures.

## Conclusion

Connecticut upheld a historic district commission’s denial of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition, concluding the commission had authority to regulate demolition, the ordinance was valid, procedures were adequate, and the owners did not prove a taking or that the denial was arbitrary or unlawful.


Figarsky v. Historic Dist. Comm’n of Norwich, 171 Conn. 198, 368 A.2d 163 (Conn. 1976)