## Facts

- Sebastian and Rebecca Gangemi owned a beach-area residence in Fairfield, Connecticut.
- In 1986, they sought and obtained a variance from setback requirements to enlarge a nonconforming home and convert it from seasonal to year-round use.
- The variance included an “owner occupancy only” condition that effectively prohibited renting the property, even though rentals were not generally barred in the district.
- In 1996, a zoning enforcement officer determined the Gangemis were violating the condition by renting and ordered compliance.
- The Gangemis applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals to invalidate/remove the no-rental condition; the board denied the request.
- The Gangemis appealed the 1996 denial to the Superior Court; the trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as an untimely collateral attack on the 1986 variance condition.
- The Appellate Court affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certification.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from the board’s 1996 refusal to invalidate a 1986 variance condition, or whether the appeal was an untimely collateral attack on the original variance.
2. Whether continued enforcement of a variance condition barring rental (“owner occupancy only”) is unlawful as an unreasonable restraint on alienation and beyond legitimate zoning authority where it lacks a record-supported land-use justification.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed.
- The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal challenged the board’s 1996 decision to maintain the condition, which was a reviewable action, not an untimely direct appeal from the 1986 variance grant.
- On the merits, continued maintenance of the owner-occupancy/no-rental condition was unlawful because it operated as a direct restraint on a core incident of ownership (the right to lease) without a valid, record-supported zoning purpose.
- The case was remanded with direction to sustain the Gangemis’ appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictions on the free alienation of property are disfavored and will not be upheld unless they serve a legal and useful purpose.
- The right to rent/lease is a central component of property ownership; a governmental restriction targeting that right is a restraint on alienation.
- Zoning authority is directed to regulating land use, not the identity or personal status of owners or occupants; conditions focusing on “who” occupies (owner vs. tenant) are suspect unless tied to legitimate land-use objectives.
- A board’s later refusal to modify or remove an allegedly unlawful condition can constitute a new, appealable decision, permitting judicial review even if the original condition was not timely appealed.
- Variance conditions must be supported by a legitimate zoning objective grounded in the record; otherwise, they exceed permissible zoning power.

## Conclusion

The court held that an owner-occupancy condition prohibiting rentals, imposed as part of a variance and later maintained without a valid, record-supported land-use purpose, is an unlawful restraint on alienation; it also held that courts have jurisdiction to review the board’s later refusal to remove such a condition.


Gangemi v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 255 Conn. 143, 763 A.2d 1011 (2001)