## Facts

- Nicole S. Graff owned and lived on a single-family residence on a nine-acre parcel in Killingworth, Connecticut’s rural residential district.
- Neighbors complained about the large number of dogs kept on Graff’s property and the noise generated by them.
- The town planning and zoning commission interpreted the zoning regulations to treat keeping four or fewer pet dogs at a residence as a “reasonable and customary accessory use,” and keeping more than four dogs as not permissible in the district.
- The commission issued a cease-and-desist order directing Graff to reduce her dogs to no more than four within 30 days or appeal.
- Graff appealed to the zoning board of appeals, which held a de novo hearing and upheld both the cease-and-desist order and the commission’s interpretation.
- Graff appealed to the Superior Court, which sustained her appeal and reversed the board, concluding that the board had effectively made a substantive regulatory change by imposing an enforceable numerical limit.
- The zoning board and intervening neighbors appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether household pet dogs were subject to regulation as an “accessory use” under the town’s zoning regulations.
2. Whether recognizing a four-dog maximum was an impermissible substantive change to the zoning regulations rather than a permissible interpretation of existing standards.
3. Whether the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for the zoning board’s reasonable interpretation and fact-based determination regarding what is “customary” in the district.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s judgment.
- The Court reinstated the zoning board’s decision upholding the cease-and-desist order requiring Graff to reduce the number of dogs to four or fewer.
- The Court held that treating household pets as an accessory residential use was a reasonable construction of the regulations.
- The Court held that the four-dog threshold was permissible administrative line-drawing within the interpretation of “reasonable and customary accessory use,” not an unlawful legislative amendment.
- The Court held that the trial court failed to apply proper deference and improperly reweighed matters committed to the zoning board’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Local zoning authorities may reasonably construe broadly worded zoning terms, including “accessory use,” to address land-use impacts even when the specific activity is not enumerated.
- Keeping household pets can constitute a regulable land use when it affects neighboring properties and the character of the zoning district.
- Interpreting a general zoning standard may include adopting a measurable threshold that articulates what counts as “customary,” so long as the interpretation is grounded in the regulations and is reasonable.
- Courts reviewing zoning appeals must defer to a zoning board’s reasonable interpretation and factual determinations when supported by substantial evidence and must not substitute their own judgment.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the zoning board’s interpretation that keeping more than four dogs exceeded a customary residential accessory use in the rural residential district, treated the numerical limit as permissible administrative interpretation rather than unlawful rulemaking, and required judicial deference to the board’s supported determinations.


Graff v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 277 Conn. 645, 894 A.2d 285 (Conn. 2006)