Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** SOUTHBURY LAND TRUST, INC., ET AL. v. WILLIAM ANDRICOVICH ET AL. (AC 19635)
Foti, Spear and Mihalakos, Js. Argued June 7--officially released September 12, 2000 Counsel

Neil R. Marcus, for the appellant (named plaintiff). Martin A. Rader, Jr., with whom was John H. Van Lenten, for the appellees (defendants).
Opinion

FOTI, J. This case concerns the construction of a conservation covenant that was executed in favor of the plaintiff Southbury Land Trust, Inc.,1 in connection with a rezoning of a parcel of land now owned by the defendants, William Andricovich and Sabina Andricovich. The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's judgment interpreting the conservation covenant to allow the construction of a single-family home on the defendants' land. The plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly concluded that the covenant permits the proposed construction of a detached single-family dwelling on the subject parcel and (2) even if the court properly con-

cluded that the covenant permits the construction of a detached single-family home, the location of the proposed construction would constitute a violation of the covenant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are relevant to this appeal. The defendants own an approximately nine acre farm in Southbury. This parcel of land is also known as ``parcel C'' of planned development district number 5 (district). An amendment to the zoning regulations of the town of Southbury, which went into effect in November, 1983, created the district as part of a land development deal. The amendment required that as part of the approval process for the development project, the owner of parcel C execute a conservation easement2 that would perpetually restrict the use of parcel C to those uses set out in sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.7 of the amendment. Thereafter, the owners3 of parcel C executed a conservation easement that, among other things, adopted almost verbatim the restrictions set forth in sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of the amendment. Section 2 of the conservation easement, the interpretation of which is the subject of this appeal, provides in relevant part: ``[T]o restrict Parcel C to its agricultural and open space use, within Parcel C land, buildings and other structures shall be used for the following purposes and no other: ``(a) Farms, truck gardens, forestry and keeping of livestock and poultry. ``(b) A single detached dwelling for one (1) family and not more than (1) such dwelling per lot, except as provided in subparagraph c below. ``(c) An additional dwelling unit for one family in a dwelling or another building, provided that the same is used only as a residence for one or more members of the family of persons directly employed in the operation of the uses in subparagraph a above on Parcel C of [the district]. . . .'' (Emphasis added.) In the fall of 1998, the defendants obtained a zoning permit to construct on parcel C a detached4 singlefamily home to be occupied by Sabina Andricovich's son and his family. The plaintiff, a nonprofit corporation dedicated to conserving natural areas in Southbury, brought this action claiming that the construction of an additional single-family home would violate the terms of the conservation easement. The trial court found that the construction of a detached single-family dwelling was consistent with the exception set out in

Download Southbury Land Trust, Inc. v. Andricovich.pdf

Connecticut Law