## Facts

- Plaintiffs owned an interior parcel lacking direct access to a public road.
- Defendants owned adjoining land between plaintiffs’ parcel and the public way.
- Plaintiffs sought an easement by necessity across defendants’ land to access the otherwise landlocked parcel.
- The parcel historically had been used for agricultural purposes, with no established history of subdivision or residential development.
- Plaintiffs requested an easement of roughly 50 feet to support construction of a roadway suitable for a proposed residential subdivision.
- The trial court recognized an easement by necessity but defined it as a 20-foot right-of-way and limited its use to farming and recreational purposes, consistent with local zoning limits.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in setting the easement by necessity at 20 feet wide rather than the broader width sought for subdivision road access.
2. Whether the trial court clearly erred in limiting the easement’s use to farming and recreational purposes instead of permitting access for residential subdivision development.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment.
- The court held that the width and permissible uses of an easement by necessity are factual determinations reviewed for clear error.
- The court concluded the evidence supported the finding that a 20-foot right-of-way was reasonably necessary for beneficial use of the parcel in light of its historic agricultural character.
- The court upheld the use restriction to farming and recreation as consistent with reasonable necessity and as imposing a lesser burden on the servient estate than a subdivision roadway.

## Legal Principles

- An easement must be used reasonably and in a manner as little burdensome to the servient estate as the nature and purpose of the easement permit.
- The scope and extent of an easement by necessity, including width and allowed uses, are questions of fact for the trial court and are disturbed on appeal only if clearly erroneous.
- An easement by necessity provides access reasonably necessary for beneficial use of the dominant estate, not the maximum access desired for new or more intensive development.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a limited easement by necessity because the trial court’s fact-based determination—granting a 20-foot right-of-way for farming and recreational access—was supported by the evidence and properly constrained to what was reasonably necessary while minimizing burden on the servient land.


Strollo v. Iannantuoni, 53 Conn. App. 658, 734 A.2d 144 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999)