Roderick Desmarais v. Town of Groton Historic District Commission (2010)

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I.

Procedural History

This is an appeal by Roderick Desmarais (the “plaintiff”) from the decision of the Town of Groton Historic District Commission (the “Commission”) to deny plaintiff's application for a certificate of appropriateness regarding property at 81 High Street, Mystic, Connecticut.

A memorandum of decision in this case was issued on April 14, 2010.   In that memorandum of decision, the court found that plaintiff was aggrieved and had standing to prosecute this appeal.   It was also found that this action had been instituted within the time allowed by statute.

The memorandum of decision set forth the rules of law which govern the appeal and made a finding of facts based upon the record.   The record indicated that in December 2006, plaintiff filed an application with the Commission seeking a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a garage on property at 81 High Street in the Mystic Historic District.   After a public hearing, the appeal was approved.

The garage was not built in accordance with the approved certificate and, on September 7, 2007, plaintiff submitted an application seeking to change the terms of the approved certificate with respect to the pitch of the roof and other items.   A public hearing was held on plaintiff's application on October 2, 2007.   This hearing was continued to October 16, 2007.   The application was denied by the Commission.   The Commission stated its reasons for the denial as:

The roof pitch and the resulting shape and detailing of this building is not consistent with barn/carriage house structures within the historic district.

The denial of plaintiff's application is the subject of this appeal.

Due to equipment malfunction, there was no verbatim transcript of any of the public hearings and deliberations of the Commission.   Because of the lack of transcripts, the matter was scheduled for hearing to introduce additional evidence in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes § 8-8k on May 12, 2010.

From such evidence, it is determined that the public hearing, plaintiff submitted evidence in support of his application for a certificate of appropriateness in the form of a packet which included drawings and photographs.   Plaintiff argued in favor of granting the certificate.   He stated that the building should be consistent with the primary buildings on the property and other buildings in the immediate vicinity.   He used the photographs to demonstrate that the roof of his garage was consistent with the pitch of roofs on other buildings in the area.

Plaintiff sought comments from members of the Commission.   In response, Commissioner Vaughn stated that each building should be considered on an individual basis.   She also commented that the trim and roof line proposed by plaintiff were wrong and inappropriate.   Commissioner Mitchell agreed with Vaughn and stated that she did not like the roof.   Commission Chairman Nado stated that members of the Commission said that the low pitch of the roof was inappropriate.   He stated that the lower-pitched roof was more contemporary and modern looking than the steep pitch of older style outbuildings.

Commissioner Seager, a member of the Commissioner for 22 years at the time of the hearing with impressive credentials in the field of architectural design, stated that Nineteenth Century outbuilding architecture was really important to the fabric of the Nineteenth Century Historic District.   He stated that the roof pitch was germane to that because of the building materials available, wooden shingles.   This material would not allow lower-pitched roofs.   Mr. Seager submitted photographs either at the public hearing or the preliminary hearings illustrating his point.   The pictures were all taken in the historic district within one-quarter mile of plaintiff's property.

Mr. Seager's position was discussed with the other commissioners at the public hearing and/or during the pre-application process.

Although the Commission questions other aspects of plaintiff's building, the pitch of the roof was the main concern and the reason for rejecting his application.   The reason for denying plaintiff's application was stated by the Commission as:

The roof pitch and the resulting shape and detailing of this building is not consistent with barn/carriage house structures within the historic district.

Members of the Commission were entitled to take into consideration the knowledge they had acquired by personal observations.   Here, also, the commissioners all had served in that capacity for a number of years.   They were sufficiently knowledgeable concerning the architectural aspects of the Mystic Historic District and could recognize what would and would not be appropriate.

At the hearing, some commissioners may have expressed their disapproval of plaintiff's application in subjective terms indicating their dislike for the pitch of the roof for which the appeal was sought.   There is, however, substantial evidence in the record, particularly from the statements of Chairman Nado and Mr. Seager, that the low pitch of the roof of plaintiff's building was inconsistent with the Nineteenth Century Historic District.

It must be found then that the Commission decision to deny plaintiff's application was based on a sound knowledge of architectural construction appropriate with the Mystic Historic District.   It must then be found that the commissioners' decision to deny plaintiff's application for a certificate of appropriateness was not illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, the action of the Commission appealed from is affirmed and plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Joseph J. Purtill

Judge Trial Referee

Purtill, Joseph J., J.T.R.